North Carolina solid waste and materials management annual report

North Carolina
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Annual Report
JULY 1, 2003 - JUNE 30, 2004
State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Reduce--Reuse--Recycle Acknowledgements
This is the 13th annual status report prepared by the Solid Waste Section, Division of Waste Management and the Business and Community Assistance Section, Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. Special thanks go to the following staff for providing data and information for this annual report:
Jim Coffey, Solid Waste Section, Chief
Paul Crissman, Solid Waste Section, Environmental Programs Manager
Linda Culpepper, Division of Waste Management, Deputy Director
Rachel Eckert, Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance
Cheryl Hannah, Solid Waste Section
Jim Hickman, Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance
Brian Ketchem, Department of Transportation
Dexter Matthews, Division of Waste Management, Director
Pam Moore, Solid Waste Section
Scott Mouw, Community & Business Section, Chief
Bill Patrakis, Solid Waste Section
Percy Richardson, Department of Administration
Brent Rockett, Solid Waste Section
John Sharp, Department of Transportation
Rebecca Sluder, Solid Waste Section
The Solid Waste Section would like to thank the county managers, solid waste directors and recycling coordinators who provided much of the information used in this report.
For information on specific programs, contact:
North Carolina Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1301
(919) 807-2425
http://www.doa.state.nc.us
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1646
(919) 733-4996
http://wastenotnc.org
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance
1639 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1639
(919) 715-6500
http://www.p2pays.org
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1591 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1591
(919) 250-4128
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us
250 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $782.15 or $3.12 per copy.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004
CHAPTER 1 PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE...........................................................................................4
KEY FINDINGS............................................................................................................................................4
RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................................4
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL.............................................................................................................................5
LANDFILL CAPACITY NEEDS..........................................................................................................................6
FUTURE WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS................................................................................................................7
STATE WASTE REDUCTION GOAL.................................................................................................................8
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INITIATIVE.................................................................................................................9
IMPORTS & EXPORTS..................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 2 GOVERNMENT WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES...........................................................11
SOURCE REDUCTION AND REUSE PROGRAMS.............................................................................................11
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECOVERY PROGRAMS.............................................................................................11
RECYCLING MARKETS, PRICES, AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTS...................................................................16
TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS...........................................................................................17
KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE...............................................................................20
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND.................................................................................................20
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES...........................................................................................................22
PUBLICATIONS AND OUTREACH EFFORTS....................................................................................................23
PLANNED EXPENDITURES FOR FY 04-05....................................................................................................24
ATTACHMENT A: TRUST FUND REVENUE SOURCES.....................................................................................25
ATTACHMENT B: 2004 COMMUNITY WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANT PROJECTS........................26
ATTACHMENT C: 2004 RECYCLING BUSINESS GRANT PROJECTS.................................................................28
CHAPTER 4 STATE AGENCY WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS............................................................30
PURCHASES OF RECYCLED PRODUCTS.......................................................................................................30
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 5 WHITE GOODS MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................35
KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................35
CHAPTER 6 SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................40
SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL ACCOUNT...............................................................................................................40
GRANTS AWARDED...................................................................................................................................41
TIRE CLEANUP PROGRAM.........................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.............................................................................46
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.........................................................................................................46
ATTACHMENT #1: FISCAL YEAR 2004 TOTALS......................................................................................47
ATTACHMENT #2: TOTALS (JANUARY, 1989 - JUNE, 2004)...................................................................48
CHAPTER 8 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION...............................................................................51
E-PROCUREMENT @YOUR SERVICE..........................................................................................................51
OPEN MARKET AWARDS...........................................................................................................................52
STATEWIDE TERM CONTRACTS...................................................................................................................52
APPENDIX A-1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MSW LANDFILLS
APPENDIX A-2 SCRAP TIRE MONOFILLS
APPENDIX A-3 INCINERATION FACILITIES
APPENDIX A-4 PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS
APPENDIX A-5 TRANSFER STATIONS AND MIXED WASTE PROCESSING FACILITIES
APPENDIX B COUNTY PER CAPITA RATE
APPENDIX C IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
TOTAL LANDFILL CAPACITY FOR NC
MSW LANDFILL CAPACITY ANALYSIS (BY COUNTY)N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 1
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
This consolidated annual report is required by the North Carolina General Assembly in G.S. 130A-309.06, as amended in 2001. The information presented is from 522 (100 county and 422 municipal) local government annual reports, 332 (including 15 out-of-state) permitted solid waste management facilities and 195 state agencies, institutions and schools. These reports represent activities related to the management of solid waste for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
This report combines several annual reports that were once issued separately by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The reports were the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Report, the Scrap Tire Disposal Account Report, the White Goods Management Report and the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund Report. This report also includes information from the Department of Transportation regarding its use of recycled materials in contracts and data from the Department of Administration on bid procedures, the purchase of materials with recycled content and a summary of items purchased with recycled content.
Key Findings

The state per capita disposal rate is 1.27 tons per person per year, a 4 percent increase over the 1.23 rate from last fiscal year or an increase of 18 percent from the FY 91-92 base year.

North Carolina communities disposed of 10,713,444 tons of waste in North Carolina and out-of-state facilities. This represents an increase of 476,484 tons from the previous fiscal year.

North Carolina permitted solid waste management landfills received a total of 9,674,396 tons of solid waste during FY 03-04. Almost 109,000 tons originated from other states, a decrease of 24,342 import tons over the previous period. South Carolina and Virginia accounted for all imported waste.

Ten North Carolina counties with 39 percent of the population accounted for 46 percent of the solid waste disposed in the state. Sixty-two counties exported at least some waste to landfills in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.

Major materials recovered by North Carolina local governments during FY 03-04 were fiber (55 percent), metals (23 percent) and glass (11 percent).

For the fifth straight year the number of local government curbside programs declined, although the number of households served grew.

Measurable and steady progress toward waste reduction initiatives do not appear evident in the 2003 version of local government ten-year solid waste management plans. A majority of the county solid waste programs are reactive rather than progressive.

NC continues to rely heavily on exporting waste. Over one million tons of waste was exported in FY 03-04 compared to 108,000 imported tons.
Recommendations
Again, most North Carolina counties have not halted the trend of increased waste generation and disposal. The state has moved forward with improvements to the state’s solid waste management methods. Gains include better record keeping, the ability to calculate landfill capacity, enhanced public participation and additional strategic planning. However, the goal of decreasing per capita waste disposal is not progressing. To decrease future waste disposal it is vital to implement the following goals:

Increase source reduction, municipal solid waste recycling and source-separated composting of organics to reduce the need for additional municipal solid waste disposal capacity as the population grows and predicted per capita disposal amounts increase.

Enhance infrastructure and markets to increase source reduction and both MSW and special waste recycling to reduce the need for additional disposal capacity.

Reissue and enforce Executive Order 156 [http://www.p2pays.org/ref/03/02221.pdf], which first passed in July 1999.
4
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Solid Waste Disposal
This past year, the amount of waste disposed in North Carolina increased as it has for the past decade. Both the total amount of waste disposed and the amount disposed on a per capita basis increased. Hurricanes continue to have a large impact on our waste disposal figures. The increase in disposal seen in coastal counties is due to both Hurricane Isabel in September 2003 and the ongoing demolition and construction in coastal communities. This may explain the large, 4 percent increase in the current per capita disposal rate from the previous year. The trend may continue in the next report cycle due to the 2004 damage in the mountain communities.
The state measures changes in waste disposal rates by comparing the current per capita waste disposal base year (FY 91-92) per capita rate. (Formula: Total Tons Disposed  Population = Per Capita Disposal Rate). Negative numbers indicate a decrease in the per capita disposal rate; positive numbers an increase. Waste reduction is a change from the base year, not a change from year to year. As seen in the following table, North Carolina continues to increase the absolute amount of waste disposed. The per capita increases have continued for eight consecutive years.
Fiscal Year
Tons
Disposed
Population
Per Capita
Disposal Rate
Change from
1991-1992
2003-2004
10,713,444
8,418,090
1.27
18 %
2002-2003
10,236,960
8,323,375
1.23
14 %
2001-2002
9,999,284
8,188,008
1.22
13 %
2000-2001
9,752,510
8,049,313
1.21
12 %
1999-2000
(adjusted*) 9,937,355
7,938,062
1.26
16 %
1999-2000
10,267,137
7,938,062
1.30
20 %
1998-1999
9,214,323
7,797,501
1.19
10 %
1997-1998
8,607,578
7,645,512
1.13
5 %
1996-1997
(adjusted*) 8,041,734
7,490,812
1.08
0 %
1996-1997
8,741,727
7,490,812
1.17
8 %
1995-1996
7,722,795
7,336,228
1.06
-2 %
1994-1995
7,624,144
7,180,525
1.07
-1 %
1993-1994
7,038,505
7,036,927
1.00
-7 %
1992-1993
6,890,818
6,892,673
1.00
-7 %
1991-1992
(managed**) 7,257,428
6,781,321
(Base Year Rate) 1.08
1991-1992
6,822,890
6,781,321
1.01
1990-1991
7,161,455
6,632,448
1.08
*The 1996-1997 and 1999-2000 fiscal years are adjusted by subtracting the tonnage estimated to be a result of Hurricanes Bertha, Fran (1996-1997), and Floyd (1999-2000).
**The tons managed figure was determined by adding the total amount of municipal solid waste disposed in landfills and
incinerators to the amount of waste managed through local governments' recycling, composting and mulching efforts in
FY 91-92. Recycling, composting and mulching were added to the tons disposed in recognition of the fact that some local
governments began waste reduction before 1991.
Statewide solid waste disposal reporting began in FY 90-91. The state made slight reductions in per capita waste rates in the early 1990s. Several factors caused these reductions. Tipping fees were established and the additional cost created an incentive to explore alternatives to municipal solid waste or construction and demolition landfills. Strong public and private interest helped local governments start recycling and waste reduction programs in response to state mandates and a perceived disposal crisis. During the early part of the decade, the state and country were in recession. Many waste professionals cite the depressed economy as the primary cause of the waste reduction.
In the mid 1990s, state waste disposal rates increased significantly. Even allowing for two natural disasters, the disposal increase is considerable. The rebounding economy was one cause, but when both the state and nation entered a recession, the expected waste reduction did not occur. The reporting period that ended on June 30, 2004 closed with a 476,484-ton increase over the previous period. As seen last year, the recession analysis model no longer appears useful when analyzing waste management changes.
5
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Tons of Solid Waste Disposed of by North Carolina02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,0001990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-04Fiscal YearTons
Past waste and per capita disposal trends help estimate the amount of waste attributed to Hurricane Fran in FY 96-97. Counties reported actual totals following Hurricane Floyd in FY 99-00, so the figure is more precise. During FY 03-04, another hurricane, Isabel, impacted our state and waste disposal, mainly in coastal communities. The exact amount of waste attributed to Hurricane Isabel is unknown; however, observing the monthly disposal figures for coastal counties indicates large increases following Hurricane Isabel.
No discernible pattern appeared from analysis of individual counties’ year-to-year trends. In FY 03-04, the 10 North Carolina counties that hold 39 percent of the state’s population produced nearly 46 percent of the waste. These large counties, mainly with populations over 175,000, dramatically impact North Carolina disposal totals. However, any county can significantly impact state disposal needs at any given time. For example, Davidson County showed a very large increase this past year, the result of a one-time cleanup at a manufacturing site.
Landfill Capacity Needs
North Carolina currently has 41 operational MSW landfills. The total remaining capacity of all North Carolina landfills measures approximately 230.5 million cubic yards with room for approximately 137 million tons of MSW waste. The estimate was obtained using the state’s average utilization factor of .60 tons of waste per cubic yard of air space. The estimate does not include waste exported to other states, an unknown variable subject to change.
If North Carolina’s rate of landfill use remains steady at last year’s rate of 633,000/tons per month, one might assume the state has 18.1 years of landfill capacity. However, the capacity figure is misleading. (Please see the next table.) Much of the state’s capacity is not widely available due to permit conditions, franchise arrangements and distance. This remaining capacity also assumes a current level of imported waste. Obviously, increases in the importing of waste into North Carolina could decrease capacity even further.
Limiting factors include the fact that the Camp Lejeune landfill is for Marine Corps base use only; the Alamance County landfill is permitted to accept only Alamance County waste; and the Upper Piedmont
6
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
landfill is permitted for a maximum 600 tons per day. Many landfills’ franchise agreements only allow them to accept waste from a particular distance around the landfill. Some landfills chose not to accept waste from other jurisdictions, although their permit and franchise allow it. Additionally, landfill owner/operators may elect not to construct or use all of the permitted space.
The primary limiting factor is accessibility. In North Carolina, the maximum distance that waste travels averages less than 100 miles one-way. Minor exceptions exist, but an examination of “waste sheds” or service areas that developed from 2001-2002 data support the average.
Clearly, the concept of statewide capacity does not translate into statewide access. Regions of the state have limited capacity. Both eliminating out-of-state capacity and continuing the acceptance of out-of-state waste into NC shrinks this capacity number further. At present, statewide capacity does not appear to be a problem. However, regions may experience disruptions and additional costs as facilities close, open, change jurisdictions or alter the average distance waste is transferred.
Total MSW Landfill Capacity Analysis for North Carolina
Volume Airspace Used (yd3)
95,805,976
Tons Disposed
57,083,570
2003-2004 Tons Disposed
7,606,671
Months of Operation
Utilization Factor (tons/yd3)
.60
Lifetime Ave. Tons Disposed Per Month
576,011.9
2003-2004 Ave. Tons Disposed Per Month
633,889.3
Permitted
Total
Original Available Airspace (yd3)
132,927,669
326,334,692
Remaining Airspace (yd3)
37,121,693
230,528,716
Remaining Capacity for Tonnage (tons)
22,118,022.8
137,354,710.4
Remaining Capacity in Months
34.8
217.2
Remaining Capacity in Years
2.9
18.1
Includes data from the forty-one active MSW landfills in the state
Calculations

Avg. Tons Disposed Per Month = Tons Disposed / Months of Operation

2003-2004 Avg. Tons Disposed Per Month = 2003-2004 Tons Disposed / 12 months

Utilization Factor = Tons Disposed / Volume of Airspace Used

Remaining Airspace = Original Available Airspace – Volume of Airspace Used

Remaining Capacity for Tonnage = Remaining Airspace x Utilization Factor

Remaining Capacity in Months = Remaining Capacity for Tonnage / 03-04Avg.Tons Disposed Per Mo.

Remaining Capacity in Years = Remaining Capacity in Months / 12 months
Note: See capacity analysis for state and each MSW landfill at end of this report.
Future Waste Disposal Needs
Regression analysis helps forecast future waste disposal. In other words, historical trends are used to predict future amounts. Factoring in absolute population growth, North Carolina will dispose of approximately 14 million tons in 10 years and close to 16 million tons in 15 years. This amount equals nearly a ton and a half of waste for every resident by 2012. The forecast does not include the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes, or imported waste. The obvious implication of this trend is that demand for landfill space will increase with time as populations grow, less waste is diverted and imports become a larger portion of waste disposed.
7
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
North Carolina Solid Waste Disposal Forecast01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,0009,000,00010,000,00011,000,00012,000,00013,000,0014,000,00015,000,00016,000,00017,000,0001990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-042010-112014-152019-2020Fiscal YearTons Disposed/PopulationTons DisposedPopulationLinear (Tons Disposed)Linear (Population)
State Waste Reduction Goal
The 1991 amendment to the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (Senate Bill 111), established a statewide goal to reduce the amount of waste landfilled 40 percent by 2001. Reduction is measured on a per capita basis. Since FY 91-92, waste disposal increased 18 percent - from 1.08 to 1.27 tons per person per year. The statewide goal is unmet and the state per capita rate continues to increase, although several counties achieved the state’s waste reduction goal.
Three fundamental, interrelated reasons that contributed to the failure are changes in the dynamics of waste disposal, a lack of commitment to waste diversion, and economics.
Waste management dynamics changed dramatically after the state-wide reduction goal was established. Alternative technologies, such as incineration and mixed waste composting, did not develop as anticipated. Despite a great deal of interest and significant investment in these technologies, they did not decrease landfill disposal as expected. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned legislation on flow control and prohibited local governments from directing waste to certain disposal facilities. Legally, waste is a commodity and allowed free movement.
The commitment to reduce waste has waned over the years. Local governments perceive the 40 percent goal as “just a goal” and not a mandate. Funding and resources for waste reduction activities never occurred at the levels required or anticipated for waste reduction success. In addition, anticipated landfill bans never materialized.
The economics of landfill disposal evolved since the 1989 adoption of the goal. As private landfill owners competed for tonnages, tipping fees remained low. Landfills did not become as expensive to operate as initially projected. Landfill customers readily adapted to slightly higher tip fees and did not pursue waste reduction as a way to control costs. The combination of strong state and national economies of the early 1990s, moderate disposal costs, and local communities establishing their own goals, reduced the motivation to divert materials from landfills.
8
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Public Participation Initiative
Efforts to gain local government approval to site or expand landfills can be difficult. Landfills are an essential component of any comprehensive program that safely and economically manages solid waste, but court challenges of recent decisions for new MSW landfills are common. For many years, North Carolina’s landfills were mostly county owned and operated. These facilities primarily served the county where they were located. Today, most of North Carolina's municipal solid waste goes to regional landfills located inside or outside of the state. Local governments, private waste management companies, or a combination of the two may own these regional landfills. Compared to local landfills, they serve much larger geographic areas.
Current rules for obtaining a landfill permit require local governments to certify to the state that they have jurisdiction over the proposed location and they have given approval for the facility. The local approval process includes a number of opportunities for public participation. The state permit review process, which follows local approval, considers the local government approval process. The state also conducts additional review procedures. These review considerations make up a significant portion of the legal challenges.
Public response to proposed landfills is intensely negative, especially from citizens who would neighbor proposed sites. The response is consistent and applies equally to regional facilities and “local” facilities that only serve the county where they are located. Local elected officials cite negative public response as their primary reason for denying approval for proposed landfills.
The Solid Waste Section developed a program to offer residents - especially those near a proposed facility by a potential landfill permit decision - more opportunities to participate in the permitting process. After the section receives a site suitability application or a request to modify an existing permit, a series of public meetings is held. The process has two steps. The first meeting is open to residents and businesses that neighbor the landfill. The goal is to reduce the large crowds that commonly attend public meetings so those neighbors can ask questions and engage in dialogue with permitting staff. The second, larger meeting targets the entire county. Where necessary, appropriate government or non-government agencies receive concerns expressed in the meetings.
Even with the absence of landfill applications, the public participation component in Rutherford and Camden county educated residents on the landfill siting and review process, and provided another avenue to promote an exchange of ideas among state and local officials and residents.
Imports & Exports Net Imports/Exports of Solid Waste in North Carolina0200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-04Tons ImportsExports
North Carolina continues to export more waste than import. Exported waste accounts for approximately ten percent, or a total of 1,048,111 tons of the total waste disposed in the past fiscal year. Compared to fiscal year 2002-2003 numbers, this 76,825-ton increase represents a sizeable increase in exported waste.
9
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
In FY 95-96, North Carolina exported waste to one South Carolina landfill. During FY 02-03, 11 out-of-state landfills received North Carolina waste. Sixty-two North Carolina counties currently export at least some waste to 13 out-of-state landfills and two transfer stations. Back and forth movement - where waste leaves the state only to re-enter for disposal - has continued for the third consecutive year. A transfer station in South Carolina received 96,001 tons of waste from Mecklenburg County, then sent the waste back to North Carolina for disposal. For this reason, the amount has not been included in the report’s import or export totals. Imports continue to increase since some North Carolina landfills are located near state borders. In FY 95-96, only one landfill, located in Forsyth County, received imported waste. Currently, nine North Carolina landfills receive imported waste. North Carolina transfer station reports and voluntary reports from out-of-state facilities provide the data used to track imports.
10
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 2
GOVERNMENT WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
Annual reports received from local governments provide data on source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting activities statewide as well as other aspects of solid waste management. Data from these reports develop a picture of waste reduction efforts in North Carolina and the relative effectiveness of these programs and trends in program implementation.
Source Reduction and Reuse Programs
The number of local governments with source reduction and/or reuse programs changed very little during FY 03-04. The slight decrease from 112 governments with program to 109 governments with programs is most likely due to fluctuations in program reporting. Most governments overlook source reduction and reuse programs as cost-effective components of a comprehensive waste reduction program. Local governments are encouraged to take advantage of grants that are available for swap shops and backyard composting programs as well as free junk mail reduction materials available from the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance.
Local Reduction/Reuse/Recovery Programs
Program Type
FY 97-98
FY 98-99
FY 99-00
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
FY 02-03
FY 03-04
Source Reduction Programs
Backyard Composting
81
53
59
64
67
69
68
Grass Cycling
43
41
36
35
29
38
38
Xeriscaping
13
12
11
8
8
11
14
Junk Mail Reduction
55
57
64
64
61
65
63
Enviroshopping
35
35
32
31
27
32
31
Promotion of Non-toxics
35
30
31
33
27
27
28
Other
1
5
6
3
4
2
1
Reuse Programs
Swap Shops
17
22
23
28
34
33
31
Paint Exchange
25
27
23
19
19
19
18
Waste Exchange
14
8
8
4
3
4
6
Pallet Exchange
N/A
7
7
9
6
5
9
Other
6
15
10
8
9
11
7
Local Governments
with Programs
116
123
110
117
109
112
109
Local Government Recovery Programs
Total local government recovery decreased by almost 97,000 tons in FY 03-04. The primary reason for the decrease was a decline in organic materials recovered, predominantly yard waste. Although the influence of Hurricane Isabel can be seen in the slightly elevated organics total, the hurricane did not have the same level of impact as ice storms that occurred during FY 02-03. The recovery of organics is by far the most volatile tracked category. Hurricanes, ice storms and droughts can create significant swings in organics recovery from year to year. In order to track actual trends in recovery, it is important to evaluate changes with the organics category excluded.
During FY 03-04 non-organics recovery increased by 3,337 tons or 0.7 percent. During the same period, the state’s population grew by 1.1 percent, indicating a weak growth in recycling. The weak growth is partially attributed to a continued decline in curbside recycling programs. Twenty-one communities discontinued curbside recycling programs during FY 03-04, while the only notable addition of a curbside
11
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
program was the city of Brevard, which reinstated a discontinued program. The 21 discontinued programs accounted for more than 2,100 tons of recovery during FY 02-03.
Another significant change during FY 03-04 was a decline in paper recovery. For the first time in seven years, the amount of paper recovered by local governments declined despite increases in all other categories (organics excluded). Part of this decline is due to a recalculation of the ratio used to breakout materials reported as commingled. The ratio is recalculated every couple years to accurately reflect current recovery trends, however, even using last year’s ratio, total paper would have still experienced a noticeable decline.
Several factors may have resulted in the decrease in total paper recovery. The net decrease in recycling programs definitely had an effect, but other factors such as economic conditions, improved use of electronic media, reporting irregularities and a continuing increase in tonnage reported as commingled may also have played a role in the decrease. The amount of material reported as commingled over the past five years has increased by more than 92,000 tons, increasing the difficulty in determining the exact quantities of each commodity recovered.
Local Government Recovery (Tons) and Performance Measures
Material
FY 94-95
FY 95-96
FY 96-97
FY 97-98
FY 98-99
Total Paper
185,270
212,577
228,025
216,121
233,339
Total Glass
38,088
49,601
44,978
43,449
41,623
Total Plastics
12,339
16,253
13,699
14,399
14,835
Total Metal*
59,483
65,977
77,252
81,262
77,564
Total Organics**
495,034
498,583
640,410
504,554
525,033
Special Wastes***
2,466
3,212
3,230
3,527
3,817
Construction and Demolition Debris
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other
5,987
333
12,762
35,977
63,794
Totals
798,667
846,536
1,020,356
899,290
960,005
Per Capita Recovery (lbs.)
226.19
235.59
279.19
242.03
254.40
Recovery Ratio (Recycling:Disposal)
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.10
Material
FY 99-00
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
FY 02-03
FY 03-04
Total Paper
241,859
263,365
267,840
275,538
267,371
Total Glass
41,826
46,936
49,891
51,433
52,117
Total Plastics
14,474
15,062
17,269
16,807
18,679
Total Metal*
86,480
92,634
114,786
109,723
114,097
Total Organics**
638,757
540,582
468,901
689,027
589,124
Special Wastes***
4,907
4,947
5,426
5,926
6,271
Construction and Demolition Debris
59,598
15,406
17,648
20,002
24,084
Other
5,329
6,120
5,896
4,626
4,773
Totals
1,093,032
985,052
947,657
1,173,082
1,076,516
Per Capita Recovery (lbs.)
285.61
243.66
231.47
281.88
255.76
Recovery Ratio (Recycling:Disposal)
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
* Includes white goods, aluminum cans, steel cans and other metals.
** Includes yard waste, pallets and wood waste.
*** Includes electronics, used oil, oil filters, antifreeze and batteries. 12
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
The ratio of recycling to disposal decreased slightly to 0.10 in FY 03-04. The decreasing slope in the figure below indicates that disposal grew more than recycling during the year. The ratio has remained relatively constant over the past 10 years, with spikes occurring in years that weather events increased the amount of yard waste managed.
Ratio of Recycling to Disposal – FY 90-91 to FY 03-04 -0.020.040.060.080.100.121990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001Fiscal YearRecycling:Disposal Ratio
At the request of several counties, analysis of the top 10 waste producing counties includes diversion that occurred through mulching and composting activities. Some local governments made significant investments in mulching and composting facilities and annually incur the cost of collection and facility operation. Yard waste is banned from disposal in MSW and C&D landfills. The most common management options for yard waste are mulching, composting grinding for boiler fuel and disposal in land clearing and inert debris landfills (LCIDs).
North Carolina’s top 10 waste producing counties continue to represent almost half of all waste disposed in the state. When mulching and composting is included, these counties represent roughly 47.5 percent of all local government diversion in the state. When just recycling (including special waste) is included, the top ten counties account for almost 49 percent of local government recycling activities.
Disposal vs. Recycling in Ten Largest Waste Producing Counties FY 03-04
County
Disposal
Recycling
Mulching & Composting
Contribution to Disposal
Contribution to Diversion
Mecklenburg
1,266,434
56,355
72,172
11.84 %
11.94 %
Wake
920,251
43,818
47,969
8.60 %
8.53 %
Guilford
659,224
41,606
14,185
6.16 %
5.18 %
Forsyth
550,614
19,466
43,961
5.15 %
5.89 %
Cumberland
358,348
3,987
31,566
3.35 %
3.30 %
Buncombe
319,594
33,775
3,846
2.99 %
3.49 %
Durham
294,289
17,604
18,009
2.75 %
3.31 %
New Hanover*
264,387
10,283
11,685
2.47 %
2.04 %
Cabarrus
254,210
5,854
18,623
2.38 %
2.27 %
Gaston
226,625
5,149
12,245
2.12 %
1.62 %
Total
5,113,976
237,897
274,261
47.80 %
47.58 %
* New Hanover County local governments utilize private companies for mulching and composting. Due to the structure of the annual reporting process, tonnages handled by private mulching and composting companies are generally excluded. There is an attempt to include these tonnages in the table above.
13
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Recovery of Traditional Materials
Container recovery grew by 2.64 percent during FY 03-04 to an all time high of 84,383 tons. This represents four straight years of strong growth in the recovery of glass, plastic and metal containers. Plastic container recovery grew the most during the year, potentially highlighting the ever increasing market share for plastic drink and food containers. Brown glass recovery also grew substantially during FY 03-04, however, green glass recovery declined by almost 16 percent. The large decrease in green glass recovery may be the result of fewer communities collecting green glass, a decreasing market share for green glass or the co-marketing of brown and green glass as brown glass. It is likely some combination of all three.
Total Recovery in Tons FY 95-96 to FY 03-04 35,00045,00055,00065,00075,00085,000FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99FY 99-00FY 00-01FY 01-02FY 02-03FY 03-04Fiscal Year
Local Government Recycling Program Management
The number of local government curbside programs fell again during FY 03-04. The drop to 212 municipal curbside programs represents five straight years of declines. Although most of the programs dropped have been from small towns, some larger towns have recently discontinued curbside programs. During FY 03-04 the town of Smithfield was the largest community to eliminate curbside recycling; however, the city still maintains a drop-off recycling program. Since 1999, approximately 55,000 households have lost access to curbside recycling due to program cuts. This equates to more than 6,000 non-recovered tons of material. Despite the loss of curbside recycling for 55,000 households over the past five years, the number of households served has actually grown from 960,000 to 1.3 million households. This is mainly due to annexations and growth in the cities and towns with programs. Municipal Curbside Programs050100150200250300FY 98-99FY 99-00FY 00-01FY 01-02FY 02-03FY 03-04
14
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Drop-off programs continue to contribute more to recycling than any other type of program. Roughly 45 percent of all material recovered by local governments comes from drop-off recycling programs. The ability of these programs to handle special wastes, white goods and scrap metal is the primary reason why they contribute more than curbside programs. During FY 03-04, contributions from mixed waste processing dropped to less than 0.5 percent. Recovery from mixed waste processing will likely remain extremely low in the future.
Recovery by Program Type
Program Type
Percent of Total Recovery
Curbside
39 %
Drop-off
45 %
Mixed Waste Processing
< 1 %
Other Programs
16 %
Special Waste Management
The collected amount of special wastes, including motor oil, oil filters, lead acid batteries, and household hazardous waste (HHW), continued to grow slowly in FY 03-04. The number of new programs, however, is not increasing; leaving many citizens in North Carolina unserved or underserved in the collection of these materials. As in FY 02-03, citizens in over 70 percent of the counties in North Carolina have no alternative to disposal for their household hazardous wastes, and some have no access to publicly operated oil collection sites. Most jurisdictions do not offer oil filter and anti-freeze collection. As a result, it is likely that much of this material is still being disposed or at least stockpiled.
The N. C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ pesticide container recycling program remains a relatively popular way for local governments to offer diversion opportunities for at least that portion of HHW – 69 communities offered these services in FY 03-04. In addition, with the cost of HHW programs so high, 22 jurisdictions offer alternative low cost, paint-only collection programs to the public.
Local Government Special Waste Management FY 99-00 – FY 03-04
FY 99-00
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
FY 02-03
FY 03-04
Used Motor Oil
No. of programs
126
125
127
125
124
Gallons collected
873,548
839,234
903,951*
907,123
939,916
Oil Filters
No. of programs
14
18
20
21
19
Tons collected
10.34
16.15
17.79
18.64
24.07
Antifreeze
No. of programs
49
54
56
58
63
Gallons collected
15,977
33,304
27,668
26,308
26,767
Lead Acid Batteries
No. of programs
90
90
86
86
90
No. collected
74,737
82,043
80,912
92,292
100,217
HHW
No. of programs
24
24
28
31
32
No. of permanent sites
13
12
17
17
17
HHW tons collected
931.82
1315.3
1483.97
1540.59
1760.17
Total cost reported
$1,644,818
($1,765/ton)
$1,792,125
($1363/ton)
$2,180,355
($1,469/ton)
$2,161,359
($1,403/ton)
$2,430,012
($1,381/ton)
Conversions: Oil, 1 gal = 7.4 lbs; Antifreeze, 1 gal = 8.42 lbs; Lead Acid Battery, 1 battery = 35.9 lbs
Yard Waste Management
Fiscal Year 03-04 saw an expected drop in yard waste tonnages from the previous year, in which ice storms inflated vegetative debris totals. Still, there was some effect of hurricane damage in northeastern North Carolina, and overall yard waste tonnages exceeded the “normal” half million ton mark. About 10 percent of diverted tonnage went from local government collection services directly to the public (e.g.,
15
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
leaves delivered to farmers and gardeners). Public mulch and compost programs handled the bulk of diverted yard waste. About 15 percent each of yard waste totals were delivered to private facilities or LCID landfills. But the consistent diversion of grass, leaves, limbs, brush, and stumps shows that after 10 years, the state yard waste disposal ban is working well and achieving substantial annual waste reduction.
Local Government Yard Waste Management FY 02-03 and FY 03-04
Destination of Materials
FY 02-03 tons managed
FY 03-04 tons managed
Percentage Change
End Users (direct delivery)
64,164
58,954
- 8 %
Local mulch/compost facility
582,677
509,553
- 11 %
TOTAL DISPOSAL DIVERSION*
646,841
568,507
- 12 %
Other Public Facility**
125,990
83,800
- 33 %
Private Facility
152,567
120,543
- 21 %
LCID Landfill
133,505
137,369
3 %
YARD WASTE TOTALS
932,913
826,419
- 11 %
* Tonnages under the row for “Total Disposal Diversion” are not included in diversion because of data redundancy, uncertainty about actual disposition of the waste, and actual disposal of noted tonnages.
** Yard Waste Totals exclude tons for “other public facilities” - it is assumed these tons were captured under other categories.
Yard Waste Diverted From Disposal by Local Governments, FY 95-96 – FY 03-04 Tons of Yard Waste Diverted by Local Governments0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000FY95-96FY96-97FY97-98FY98-99FY99-00FY00-01FY01-02FY02-03FY03-04Hurricane FranHurricane Floyd2003 Ice Storms
Recycling Markets, Prices, and Related Developments
From FY 02-03 through FY 03-04, recycling markets were remarkably strong across the board. Demand for all of the most commonly collected materials has been robust, and prices have been above average and stable, rising through the course of FY 03-04 for many of the commodities. End users of recovered glass, plastics, metals, and fiber have consistently indicated a need for more supply – in the case of U.S. plastics reclaimers, the lack of supply has almost reached a crisis point, especially as demand from China has increasingly pulled recycled resins away from domestic users.
The industrial growth of China has fueled a steadily rising appetite for raw materials, which it satisfies more and more with recycled commodities. China is now by far the leading importer of U.S. generated wastepaper. In the meantime, domestic users of recyclable commodities have also maintained their appetite for secondary resources, showing interest in getting more supply. The primary glass processor in North Carolina has indicated that the state’s glass mills are asking for more “cullet” (recycled glass), which replaces virgin materials and helps lower energy usage at their plants. A study by N. C. State University completed in 2004, showed that the pallet repair and recycling industry is also capable of processing much more material. A manufacturer who started making wood flooring from pallets in 2004 had trouble getting enough feedstock to feed his operation. Users of wood waste for fuel and composting
16
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
paid higher prices that normal in FY 03-04 and in some cases ran short of material as supply failed to meet demand.
The table below shows trend of prices received by major recycling processors in FY 03-04 for some of the most common commodities. The table shows the consistency of prices, and in some cases the rise in prices over the year. Steel cans in particular experienced a dramatic increase, reflecting strong worldwide demand for finished steel that drove metal scrap prices higher. Plastics also remained at above-average price rates providing evidence of the supply “crisis” for this material.
Composite Recycling Market Prices Received by Major NC Processors, FY 03-04
Materials
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Spring 2004
Summer 2004
Aluminum cans, lbs., loose
$ .46
$ .49
$ .54
$ .56
Steel cans, gross tons, baled
$ 48.00
$ 65.00
$116.00
$105.00
PETE, lbs. Baled
$ .10
$ .13
$ .14
$ .13
HDPE, lbs., baled
$ .14
$ .17
$ .16
$ .15
Newsprint, ton, baled
$ 62.00
$ 65.00
$ 89.00
$ 82.00
Corrugated, ton, baled
$ 69.00
$ 69.00
$ 96.00
$ 99.00
Office paper, ton, baled
$125.00
$133.00
$120.00
$143.00
Mixed paper, ton, baled
$ 30.00
$ 39.00
$ 50.00
$ 54.00
Clear glass, ton
$ 22.00
$ 24.00
$ 24.00
$ 24.00
Brown glass, ton
$ 21.00
$ 19.00
$ 19.00
$ 19.00
Green glass, ton
$ - 4.00
$ - 5.00
$0
$0
The figure below shows the price trends for two bellwether recyclables over the past seven years – newspaper and cardboard. Since 1999, newspaper has stayed over $40/ton, bringing stability to revenues for this material. Cardboard has been a little more volatile, but has also demonstrated strong market prices since a market low in March 1999. For both grades, the trend toward higher prices can be seen for the past two fiscal years, achieving $60/ton or better throughout that period.
Prices Paid for Newspaper and Corrugated Cardboard – July 1997 through June 2004 $0$20$40$60$80$100$120Jul-97Oct-97Jan-98Apr-98Jul-98Oct-98Jan-99Apr-99Jul-99Oct-99Jan-00Apr-00Jul-00Oct-00Jan-01Apr-01Jul-01Oct-01Jan-02Apr-02Jul-02Oct-02Jan-03Apr-03Jul-03Oct-03Jan-04Apr-04NewspaperCardboardPrice per ton, baled
Ten Year Solid Waste Management Plans
North Carolina General Statute 130A, otherwise known as The Solid Waste Management Act of 1989, regulates the management of solid waste in North Carolina and requires local governments to become proactive, rather than reactive, solid waste planners.
The legislation prescribed a minimum content for local government 10-year comprehensive solid waste management plans, commonly referred to as plans. The plans offer an opportunity to examine, from a holistic standpoint, the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the solid waste management system locally and when analyzed, across the state. A solid waste plan provides an environmentally sound and economically efficient way for local governments to manage non-hazardous waste. 17
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Staff from the Divisions of Waste Management and Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance provides resources and technical assistance for plan development. All 100 North Carolina counties design plans, either individually or regionally, in-house or through an outside entity. Public participation is required to incorporate input from a variety of public and private sources.
Not mandated to embrace the state waste reduction goal of 40 percent, counties make a "good faith" effort to define their own goal. Counties have the option to revise previous goals but must establish new goals to provide 10 years of planning. The primary objective of the planning process is to identify solid waste management needs and address them through programs, financing, political and community support. Strategies to achieve the objective include benchmarking, defining measurable goals and revising plans if circumstances or variables significantly change.
Plan Comparison
A sampling of counties correlates plans developed in 2000 with those of 2003. An analysis of 25 counties from last year’s annual report ranked the counties by amount of waste disposed. The selection includes 10 counties disposing of the most waste, plus every sixth county. This sampling method encompasses a variety of circumstances that influence a county's ability to plan, implement and fund comprehensive solid waste management programs.
The primary finding, continuing the trend seen in the previous plan analysis, shows a decline in the FY 05-06 waste reduction goals originally developed in 1997. Fifteen of the 100 county FY 05-06 goals decreased in the 2000 revisions. The 1997 Reduction goal averages of 22.96 percent decreased to 13 percent in the 2000 plans and 10.33 percent in the 2003 plans. At the county level, waste generation appears to be associated with consumer spending and production levels. As local economies and populations expand, county infrastructure needs increase. Strained budgets attempt to maintain or enhance capital improvements and provide service levels at a comparable growth rate. With goals not mandated, local infrastructure needs continue to be a budget priority - at the expense of solid waste initiatives.
Of the 25 counties surveyed, Edgecombe, Greene, Jones and Surry achieved their FY 05-06 waste reduction goal. Review of 2000 and 2003 plans did not indicate aggressive waste reduction programs in three of the four counties. However, Jones County has a variable rate disposal system which studies show produces the desired effect of reducing disposal amounts. It appears the achievement of the 2005 goal from the other three counties may be a combination of population loss or low growth and moderate unemployment rates. Edgecombe experienced a 1.2 percent decrease in population; Surry a 1.14 percent increase and Greene a 2.52 percent increase between 2000 and 2002. October 2003 unemployment rates for the counties range from 4.3 to 9.6 percent.1 This corresponds to the state growth rate of 2.8 percent and 6.1 percent unemployment rate over the same p
Some communities in North Carolina have adopted strong waste reduction policies and are implementing programs to achieve their reduction goals. Among these counties are Chatham, Orange, Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority (Carteret, Craven and Pamlico counties), Davidson, Pitt and Stokes. Two initiatives assist these counties in goal achievement, (1) programs targeting specific waste generation sectors and (2) multi-faceted education outreach.
Plans for these counties target specific waste generation sectors with programs designed to capture recyclable office and school paper, corrugated cardboard, multi-family housing recyclables or non-traditional recyclables. Several plans describe aggressive in-house buy-recycled programs and accompanying paper recycling programs. The second common component is a comprehensive education program. Education initiatives targeting the general population, tourists, schools and businesses appear to have an effect in slowing or reversing both waste generated and disposed. Continuous, multi-faceted approaches to education initiatives reinforce waste reduction objectives.
1 http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/countyprofiles/
18
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
The above counties decreased tons disposed despite increases in population, building activity or tourism. The progress in reducing waste ranged from 9 to 45 percent.
In the following table, seven counties decreased and six increased their FY 05-06 reduction goal. Non-attainment of original goals may prompt the dramatic (22.96 to 13.00 percent) goal decreases between 1997 and 2000. The 2003 plans show less decline (10.33 percent). While the goals show an overall decrease, anticipated tons increased primarily due to Wake County’s goal increase from 1 to 10 percent.
Comparison of 25 County Goals and Accompanied Waste Reduction
COUNTY
4/00
7/05 est.
Population
Change
FY 05/06
GOAL
FY 05/06
GOAL
Anticipated
Tons Reduced **
Anticipated
Tons Reduced **
Population *
Population *
2000 Plan
2003 Plan
2000 Plan
2003 Plan
BUNCOMBE
206,310
218,677
12,367
0.40
0.30
6,085
4,563
CABARRUS
131,063
150,447
19,384
0.05
0.05
1,192
1,192
CHATHAM
49,329
55,689
6,360
0.35
0.35
2,738
2,738
CLEVELAND
96,290
99,523
3,233
CRAVEN
91,523
94,067
2,544
0.40
0.22
1,252
688
CUMBERLAND
302,963
315,122
12,159
0.05
0.10
748
1,496
DURHAM
223,314
243,322
20,008
0.05
0.05
1,230
1,230
EDGECOMBE
55,606
53,596
-2,010
0.05
0.05
17
FORSYTH
306,067
325,957
19,890
-0.05
-0.05
GASTON
190,301
194,077
3,776
0.03
0.01
139
46
GREENE
18,974
20,664
1,690
0.03
0.03
62
62
GUILFORD
421,048
446,189
25,141
0.11
0.15
3,402
4,639
HOKE
33,646
39,446
5,800
0.05
0.10
357
713
JONES
10,403
10,347
-56
0.10
0.10
MECKLENBURG
695,370
789,940
94,570
0.16
0.14
18,611
16,285
NEW HANOVER
160,327
176,575
16,248
0.05
999
NORTHAMPTON
22,086
21,903
-183
0.10
0.10
PERQUIMANS
11,368
11,890
522
0.12
0.02
77
13
PERSON
35,623
38,118
2,495
0.05
0.03
153
92
POLK
18,324
19,562
1,238
0.32
-0.05
487
ROBESON
123,245
128,970
5,725
0.30
0.30
2,113
2,113
ROCKINGHAM
91,928
93,370
1,442
0.15
0.17
266
302
SURRY
71,219
73,717
2,498
0.10
0.10
307
307
WAKE
627,866
744,024
116,158
0.01
0.10
1,429
14,287
WATAUGA
42,693
43,497
804
0.06
0.06
59
59
SUM
4,036,886
4,408,689
371,803
40,708
51,843
AVERAGE (blank cells = Goal of zero)
13.00%
10.33%
2,143
2,592
* Office of State Planning 10/19/04 NOTE: Tons/person/yr. based on FY 02-03 Annual Reports
**Formula = Positive population change multiplied by 1.23 tons/person/year less positive Goal percentage
Finite local resources limit programs and services. This could result in more counties shifting recycling and waste reduction responsibility from the public to the private sector.
Error! Not a valid link.
Key Findings

Measurable and steady progress toward waste reduction initiatives do not appear evident. Progress is questionable with cursory long-term planning and numerous Plans reactive rather than progressive.

Data limitations and lack of standardized full cost accounting procedures preclude accurate program cost comparisons.

Current funding levels do not result in increased waste reduction initiatives and effective diversion numbers.
Local governments provide annual reports on source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting activities statewide. They also provide data on other aspects of solid waste management. The data determines the scope and effectiveness of North Carolina’s waste reduction efforts. It also helps planner’s spot trends in program implementation.
19
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Solid Waste Management Trust Fund
This chapter details for FY 03-04 the activities and expenditures of the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund. The Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources administers the trust fund, created by the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (SB 111). It is funded by a portion of the revenues from a fee on the sale of new tires, a tax on virgin newsprint, and an advanced disposal fee on white goods (appliances). Additional revenues can come from appropriations and contributions. The purpose of the trust fund is to support a range of solid waste management activities including: technical assistance to local governments, businesses, and other entities on solid waste issues; public educational programs; research and demonstration projects; and recycling market development (G.S. 130A- 309.12).
As noted in the table below, the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund received $951,377 in revenues in FY 03-04. When added to the beginning balance on July 1, 2003 of $2,131,232, a total of $3,082,609 was managed in the trust fund for FY 03-04. Actual expenditures were $892,708, leaving a fund balance at the end of FY 03-04 of $2,189,901. However, a total of $1,207,927 of that balance was encumbered for standing grant contracts already awarded and for which funding had not been fully disbursed (grant contracts are paid on a reimbursement basis). The unencumbered balance at the end of FY 03-04 was $981,974. An additional set of grant contracts were being encumbered at the end of the fiscal year, which further reduced the available balance.
Trust Fund Expenditures Revenue Sources
Total FY 03-04
Total FY 03-04
Beginning Balance
$ 2,131,232
Tire Tax
$ 569,845
+ Revenue
$ 951,377
White Goods ADF
$ 332,888
- Expenditures
$ 892,708
Newsprint Tax
$ 49
Ending Balance
$ 2,189,901
Appropriations
$ 0
Encumbrances
$ 1,207,927
Contributions and Misc.
$ 48,595
Unencumbered funds on 6/30/04
$ 981,974
Total Revenues
$ 951,377
Trust Fund Revenue Sources
Trust fund revenues in FY 03-04, as indicated in the table above, came from four of five possible revenue sources identified in the General Statutes. Activity from each source is described below:

2% Tire tax – Trust fund revenues from the tax on the sale of new tires accounted for $569,845, an increase of almost 5% from FY 02-03. Tire revenue accounted for close to 60 percent of total trust fund revenues for FY 03-04.

White Goods Tax – Proceeds from the advanced disposal fee (ADF) on white goods accounted for $332,888 or just over 35 percent of total revenues for FY 03-04. White goods proceeds were down 6.6 percent from FY 02-03.

Virgin Newsprint Tax – North Carolina newspaper publishers that fail to meet state-required purchasing goals for recycled content newsprint must pay a $15 per ton tax on the virgin newsprint they consume. The law allows wide exemptions for companies who are unable to purchase recycled content newsprint due to availability or pricing constraints, or who are actively involved in the recovery of newspaper for recycling. During FY 03-04, $49 was received from the virgin newsprint tax. Compliance with the law has been consistent - in 10 years, the annual revenue from the newsprint tax has never been higher than $3,000.

General Appropriations - When the Trust Fund was established in 1989, a one-time appropriation of $300,000 provided an initial fund balance. Since that time, there have been no further appropriations.

Contributions to the Trust Fund and Miscellaneous Revenues – DPPEA continued a recycling promotion campaign in FY 03-04 that entailed a cost-sharing partnership with local governments and private sector contributors. Local governments contributed $25,995 toward the campaign. Federal
20
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
funds accounted for $12,000 in contributions and other state agencies provided $10,600 in resources for the program. The list of Recycle Guys partners is provided in Attachment A to this report.
Trust Fund Expenditures
FY 03-04 was an active year for grant-making and waste reduction outreach. Trust fund resources were also used to continue delivery of technical assistance to North Carolina communities, recycling businesses, and waste generators. These activities are three of the explicit purposes noted in G.S. 130A-309.12, and are described in detail below.

Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grants
The Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grants (CWRARGs) are a standard annual grant cycle that DPPEA offers to local government and non-profit recycling programs. The cycle provides support for specific projects that enhance the effectiveness of local and non-profit recycling efforts. The CWRARGs usually include targeted grant categories designed to increase activity in certain program areas or to increase the recovery of certain commodities.
Because of an available large balance in the trust fund, DPPEA held two separate CWRARG grant cycles in FY 03-04, one in the fall of 2003 and the other in the spring of 2004. Both were initiated with a Request For Proposals circulated to local governments and non-profit agencies involved in waste reduction. Funding categories included backyard composting, buy recycled activities, and general recycling activities.
In the first round, 23 proposals were received and evaluated for funding using a “blind vote” scoring process with specific point criteria. Twenty-two proposals were selected for funding totaling $355,595 in grant awards. In the second round, 19 proposals were received and 16 projects funded for a total of $258,792 (one of these projects was combined with one funded in the Recycling Business Assistance Grants, described below). Details on the grantees and projects are provided in Attachment B.
In addition to the CWRARG cycles, DPPEA conducts a related, ongoing request for proposals to develop “Swap Shops,” which are community reuse centers open to the public. This open grant round resulted in one award in FY 03-04 to the city of Raleigh.

Business Recycling Grants
Similarly to the community-related grants, DPPEA conducted two grant cycles in FY 03-04 targeted at improving markets through the expansion of recycling businesses statewide. The strength and capacity of the private recycling infrastructure is vital to diverting materials from disposal. Many recycling businesses need a small boost in financial assistance to increase their ability to handle more and different kinds of recyclable materials. The FY 03-04 Business Recycling Grants were designed to help companies move to a higher level of material-handling capacity, which in turn offers new market opportunities to local government recycling programs and waste generators.
The first Business Recycling Grant cycle in the fall of 2003 attracted 34 proposals. Eighteen proposals were awarded a total of $450,000 in funding. Two awards were later turned down by the grantees when their project plans changed, leaving 16 total awards. In the spring grant round, a smaller amount of funding was offered, and a fewer number of proposals were received. Of the nine projects submitted, four were selected for funding for a total of $87,500. Details on the grantees and their projects are described in Attachment C.

Recycling Guys Campaign
One of the greatest waste management challenges in North Carolina is increasing household participation in local government recycling programs. Low participation harms the efficiency of local recycling programs and fails to supply materials needed by recycling businesses.
21
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
To raise participation rates, DPPEA continued the successful “Recycle Guys” educational campaign in FY 03-04, completing an ongoing broadcast cycle for the advertisements that prove very popular with children. A special effort was made to reach the Latino community through a short-term broadcast campaign on a Spanish-speaking television channel in the Triangle area. In addition, DPPEA started targeting a slightly older demographic with new ads more appealing to teen and young adult audiences.
DPPEA also initiated a number of other efforts to educate and promote recycling in new ways:

DPPEA used cinema ads in key communities around the state to increase public awareness of different aspects of recycling – for example, the number of jobs created by recycling in North Carolina and the products that recyclable materials are turned into.

DPPEA also created and distributed four new posters that feature the Recycle Guys characters promoting recycling, source reduction, composting, and buying recycled products.

To further assist and integrate the Recycle Guys characters into local programs, DPPEA produced and sent out labels for use on drop-off containers across the state.

New promotional materials – stickers, tattoos, and pencils were produced and given to local recycling coordinators to help promote local programs.

DPPEA targeted recycling participation in heavy tourist areas along the coast by distributing refrigerator magnets with recycling information to hotels and rental units.
These efforts are designed to spread the recycling outreach program into new areas and new media, and provide local programs with needed materials and assistance. DPPEA held a series of workshops in the summer of 2004 to train local recycling coordinators how to use the Recycle Guys materials effectively, and to preview a new promotional campaign being developed for next fiscal year.
Technical Assistance Activities
The general statutes direct DPPEA use the trust fund to promote waste reduction and recycling generally, and specifically provide technical assistance to local governments and build recycling markets. The following section lists activities that DPPEA pursued in FY 03-04 to accomplish these requirements:

Waste Reduction Partners Program
The Waste Reduction Partners (WRP) is a highly successful program using retired engineers and business professionals to provide environmental technical assistance to companies and local governments in western North Carolina. In a continuation of funding from the three previous years, DPPEA provided $25,000 to WRP in FY 03-04 in support of industrial solid waste audits and other recycling activities. With this funding, WRP helped western North Carolina businesses and other entities divert 14,800 tons of solid waste from landfills. The estimated pollution prevention savings for businesses served by Waste Reduction Partners in FY 03-04 totaled $1.11 million. During the fiscal year, WRP conducted solid waste reduction work in 19 different western counties.

Staff Support
To accomplish the technical assistance, public education, and recycling market development requirements in the general statutes, the trust fund was used in FY 03-04 to support staff positions in the DPPEA. A total of $338,931 was expended to pay for salaries, benefits and some limited operational support. These positions are described below:
Recycling Market Development Specialist - This position provides marketing assistance to local governments and others involved in recyclable materials collection. As a part of the Recycling Business Assistance Center in DPPEA, this person is responsible for strengthening recycling capacity for secondary materials collected throughout the state. Among other duties, it manages the recycling markets directory required by state statute.
Recycling Market Development Specialist - This position is housed part-time with the N. C. Department of Commerce and is responsible for working with local and state economic developers to recruit recycling businesses to North Carolina. This position successfully facilitated the location of two new recyclers in the state in FY 2004, and provided technical assistance to numerous existing companies.
Recycling Market Development Specialist - This position focuses on building the recycling infrastructure for the diversion of construction and demolition debris and wood waste, which together constitute one third of the state’s waste stream. In addition to managing grants and conducting other
22
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
technical assistance, this position produces the Recycling Works newsletter, which keeps recycling companies and community recycling programs abreast of market developments, material prices, and news about grants and available assistance.
Waste Management Analyst - In addition to working with local recycling coordinators, this position is responsible for developing educational materials and programs on solid waste issues for audiences ranging from school children to adult populations. In particular, this position implements the multi-media statewide “Recycle Guys” campaign designed to boost recycling participation rates in North Carolina.
Waste Management Analyst - This position is responsible for providing technical assistance to local governments on their waste reduction programs, including solid waste planning and full cost accounting (statutory requirements for local governments). The position also manages recycling program data from state-mandated local waste reduction reports, which in turn allows completion of this report.
Waste Management Analyst (DPPEA) – This position manages the WasteTrader waste exchange service, provides direct assistance to commercial and industrial waste generators, helps manage grants and the local reporting process, and is responsible for many training and outreach activities to local recycling programs.
Organics Recycling Specialist (DPPEA) - This position provides technical assistance to local governments, recycling businesses, waste generators, and the general public on the reduction and composting of organic waste streams, including yard wastes, which are banned from disposal by statute.

Graduate Intern Program
Through a contract with the Water Resources Research Institute (WRRI) in the University of North Carolina, DPPEA hires student interns for a full year. Student projects in FY 03-04 included: 1) continuation and expansion of the Recycle Guys campaign, 2) development of best management case studies on local recycling programs, 3) promotion of the use of re-refined oil and other recycled products by state and local agencies, and 4) assistance with the development of recycling markets and improvement of local programs.
Product Stewardship Initiatives
“Product Stewardship” is a growing movement by state and local governments to increase manufacturer responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products, including the diversion of those products from disposal to recycling. Greater manufacturer responsibility for end-of-life products will reduce cost and tax burdens on state and local governments. In FY 03-04, North Carolina participated in product stewardship initiatives by supporting the activities of the national Product Stewardship Institute and by helping lead a multi-state effort to encourage producer responsibility for beverage containers.
Lightweight Aggregate Project
The disposal of coal ash and other industrial by-products is becoming a more difficult issue, and one that contributes to the increase in waste disposal in North Carolina. To help address this problem, DPPEA supported in FY 03-04 the work of the N. C. State University Minerals Research Laboratory to develop a value-added lightweight aggregate product from coal ash, organic bio-solids, and other materials. This project is conducted in partnership with private industry and is focused on demonstrating the effectiveness of a production-level facility for the lightweight aggregate product.
Publications and Outreach Efforts
DPPEA used trust fund resources in FY 03-04 for a number of technical assistance and outreach activities, including: printing and distributing the Recycling Works newsletter and other fact sheets; conducting workshops and sessions at conferences of the Carolina Recycling Association and N. C. chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America; and travel to provide technical assistance to local governments and trust fund grantees. Normally, DPPEA would use appropriated funds for these purposes but were unable to given the state budget shortfalls.
23
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Temporary Assistance
North Carolina statutes require solid waste management annual reports from all counties and municipalities, which in turn provides data for the State Annual Solid Waste Management Report. In addition, N. C. statutes require the keeping of a directory of recycling markets. DPPEA used temporary labor in FY 03-04 to manage the large set of data required for both of these tasks, and to increase the amount of technical assistance resources available to local governments.
Planned Expenditures For FY 04-05
In FY 04-05, the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund will be used to provide technical assistance to local government recycling programs and to recycling businesses statewide. As part of that effort, DPPEA will conduct both a community-based and recycling business grant cycle, helping directly expand collection and processing capacity for recyclable materials. A series of workshops is planned on electronics recycling, increasing plastic bottle collection, and promoting greater beneficial use of landfill gas. DPPEA will further work to increase the reach of the Recycle Guys campaign, and develop a new promotion campaign designed to encourage a commitment to recycling by teen-agers and young adults. The trust fund will continue to support the effective Waste Reduction Partners program in western North Carolina, and help North Carolina participate in national coalitions seeking to promote product stewardship.
All questions regarding the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Trust Fund may be directed to Scott Mouw, Chief, Community and Business Assistance Section, Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance, at 919-715-6512.
24
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Attachment A: Trust Fund Revenue Sources
The North Carolina Solid Waste Trust Fund received 95 percent of its revenues in FY 03-04 from two sources: the statewide fees on the purchase of new tires and white goods (appliances). The trust fund only receives a small portion of the proceeds from these fees. The total distribution arrangement of each of these fees is described below:
Scrap Tire Tax - During this reporting period (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), a 2 percent fee was levied on the purchase of new tires in North Carolina. The tire tax allocation is as follows:

68 percent of revenues are distributed to the counties on a per capita basis to pay for the proper management of discarded tires.

27 percent of revenues are credited to the Scrap Tire Disposal Account (administered by the Solid Waste Section) for local government grants and nuisance tire site cleanup.

5 percent of revenues are credited to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund (administered by the Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance).
White Goods Tax - During this reporting period (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004); a $3 fee was levied on the purchase on all appliances. The white goods tax allocation is as follows:

72 percent of revenues are distributed to the counties on a per capita basis to pay for the proper management of discarded white goods.

20 percent of revenues are credited to the White Goods Management Account (administered by the Solid Waste Section) for grants to local governments for managing discarded white goods.

8 percent of revenues are credited to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund (administered by the Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance)
FUNDING PARTNERS FOR THE FY 03-04 RECYCLE GUYS CAMPAIGN
The Solid Waste Trust Fund received an additional approximate five percent of its revenues from partners and other funding sources supporting the Recycle Guys educational campaign, as detailed below.
Partner Name
Amount Given
Mecklenburg County
$5,000
Town of Cary
$5,000
City of Raleigh
$5,000
Wake County
$4,000
Davidson County
$2,500
City of Burlington
$2,500
Orange County
$1,000
New Hanover County
$995
NC Dept of Transportation
$10,000
UNC-Charlotte
$600
US EPA
$12,000
TOTAL
$48,595
25
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Attachment B: 2004 Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Projects
GRANTEE
AMOUNT
GRANT DESCRIPTION
Buncombe County
$20,000
Buncombe County will improve and expand its household hazardous waste program and construct a permanent electronics recycling facility at its landfill.
Chatham County
$5,000
Chatham County will work with the National Soft Drink Association to increase recycling in its public school system and purchase recycling containers to help that effort.
City of Charlotte
$23,500
The city of Charlotte will develop and implement its "Mark of Distinction" education and outreach program to increase recycling participation in minority neighborhoods.
City of Conover
$12,735
The city of Conover will purchase a mobile recycling trailer and modify an existing recycling truck.
City of Durham
$24,550
The city of Durham will purchase special event recycling bins and develop a Latino outreach program.
City of Greensboro
$12,960
The city of Greensboro, in conjunction with UNC-G, Guilford County, and the City of High Point, will hold a one day electronics collection event in the Spring of 2005.
City of Raleigh
$25,000
The city of Raleigh will adopt the National Soft Drink Association's radio and billboard recycling ads designed to increase public awareness and commitment to recycling.
Dixie Classic Fairgrounds
$20,000
Dixie Classic Fairgrounds will purchase a 4 wheel drive tractor with front end bucket to improve its composting operation.
Edgecombe County
$12,500
Edgecombe County will purchase containers and implement a mixed paper recycling program.
Franklin County
$16,000
Franklin County will expand its recycling program by including all county office buildings in its mixed paper collection project.
Gaston County
$18,000
Gaston County will create a billboard advertising campaign to raise residents' awareness about recycling facilities available in the county.
Greene County
$17,000
Greene County will purchase containers and conduct public outreach to increase the amount of recyclables received at its convenience centers.
Habitat For Humanity of Forsyth County
$15,000
Habitat for Humanity will purchase a forklift, used baler, and other materials to support a wood recycling program and to recycle waste generated in its operations.
Hyde County
$11,145
Hyde County will make improvements to its convenience sites and work to improve participation in curbside recycling.
Iredell County
$22,000
Iredell County will implement a school recycling program, work to increase participation in curbside recycling, and enhance the current aluminum recycling program.
Iredell County
$4,500
Iredell Countywill implement a backyard composting education and bin distribution program.
Jackson County
$25,000
Jackson County will add four containers at recycling centers to expand collection of recyclable paper.
Keep Wayne County Beautiful
$25,000
Keep Wayne County Beautiful will implement a paper recycling program in all 31 county schools.
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
$25,000
Land of Sky will help Buncombe County and City of Asheville Schools set up a school recycling program & conduct related outreach activities.
Lee County
$21,275
Lee County will implement a new educational program and expand some waste reduction activities to public buildings in the county.
26
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
GRANTEE AMOUNT GRANT DESCRIPTION
Madison County
$11,365
Madison County will add cardboard collection to its existing services and develop a public education program.
McDowell County
$3,600
McDowell County will conduct a Master Composter Course for the county's convenience center staff. The county will also sponsor an Earth Day celebration and compost bin giveaway.
Mecklenburg County
$25,000
Mecklenburg County will develop and distribute 50,000 Wipe Out Waste guides designed to increase public awareness of recycling opportunities.
Mecklenburg County
$15,000
Mecklenburg County will implement a television, radio, and news campaign to educate businesses about their commercial recycling ordinance and decrease the amount of paper going to the landfill.
New Hanover County
$25,000
New Hanover County will begin recycling construction and demolition waste at the county landfill, using the grant to purchase signage and a loader, and hire manual laborers to sort materials.
Orange County
$25,000
Orange County will purchase a crusher to reduce glass recycling costs.
Orange County
$10,000
Orange County will adopt the National Soft Drink Association's radio and billboard recycling ads.
Pasquotank County
$5,000
Pasquotank County will test asphalt paving made with recycled glass at a county collection site.
PCG SWM Commission
$24,520
The PCG Commission will implement a mobile home recycling program for the three county region.
Rutherford County
$4,900
Rutherford County will send recycling brochures to county households, erect bulletin boards, and publish a video to promote recycling.
Scotland County
$20,000
Scotland County will construct a permanent HHW facility and implement a paint, oil, battery and antifreeze collection program.
Town of Hope Mills
$4,140
The town of Hope Mills will purchase recycled content containers and benches labeled to educate the public about green purchasing.
Town of Kernersville
$3,780
The town of Kernersville will create a purchasing manual and conduct training for purchasers, businesses, and residents to improve the buy-recycled program.
Town of Kernersville
$23,107
The town of Kernersville will upgrade from recycling bins to carts, present a composting workshop, electronics recycling day event, develop a pallet exchange program and print a residential brochure in English & Spanish.
Town of Woodfin
$13,850
The town of Woodfin will establish a curbside recycling program.
Tyrrell County
$3,960
Tyrrell County will make general physical improvements on and increase education about the county's recycling program.
Wayne Opportunity Center
$25,000
Wayne Opportunities Center will support the county's new school recycling program and commercial recycling efforts with expanded processing capacity.
27
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Attachment C: 2004 Recycling Business Grant Projects
GRANTEE
AMOUNT
GRANT DESCRIPTION
CompuTel IG
$20,000
CompuTel will purchase a truck with a hydraulic tailgate to increase its coverage area and provide a more rapid response to its clients.
Confidential Shredding
$20,000
Confidential Shredding will purchase a mobile shredding truck and customer security containers to expand paper recycling collection and document destruction services by offering on-site paper shredding services to customers.
Curbside Management
$30,000
Curbside Management will purchase collection bins, refurbish a truck, and install a floor level sort line to implement a paper and cardboard recycling collection program for commercial customers.
ECVC
$17,500
ECVC will install and utilize a trommel screen with an outside drive to remove contaminants from mixed glass cullet.
Edwards Custom Sawmilling & Lumber
$7,500
Edwards will purchase a 4-sided planer and related equipment to process urban old growth timber into lumber to be used by cabinet shops, flooring manufacturers, and custom furniture manufacturers.
Elizabeth City Glass
$20,000
Elizabeth City Glass will purchase and install capital equipment to support a pre-cast cement production process that will use C&D pane glass, ceramics, and post-consumer container glass as feedstock aggregate for a variety of end-use products.
Ensley Corp.
$25,000
Ensley Corporation will construct a concrete storage pad and a ramp from the facility loading docks to the outside ground to enable expansion of HDPE plastic recycling.
Habitat ReUse Center- Wake County
$35,000
The Habitat Reuse Center will expand its deconstruction services and focus on commercial buildings. (NOTE: Habitat's Business Recycling grant is combined with a CWRAR grant)
Inter-Faith Food Shuttle
$25,000
Inter-Faith Food Shuttle will purchase a truck to expand its food collection services from Triangle area grocery stores.
Jackson Paper Manufacturing
$12,500
Jackson Paper will study paper-based poultry bedding vs. wood based litter to see the differences in modeled precipitation and associated nitrogen and phosphate leachate and run-off.
Kamlar Corp.
$25,000
Kamlar Corporation will purchase a front-end loader with solid tires and a clamshell-clamping bucket to expand wood waste recycling.
McGill Environmental Systems
$45,000
McGill will establish the company's third major composting facility in
N.C. in Pitt County (NOTE: This grant turned down when McGill's business development plans changed)
Oaks Unlimited
$30,000
Oaks Unlimited will install equipment to mill pallet deckboards into pre-finished flooring ready for installation. The finished product will be boxed and ready for distribution.
Orange Recycling Services
$35,000
ORS will install a semi-automated "mini MRF" to assist in sorting commingled containers, and separately commingled paper.
Paper Stock Dealers - Raleigh
$20,000
Paper Stock Dealers will purchase capital equipment to implement a corrugated cardboard and office paper recovery program for businesses and schools.
Preserve Business Systems
$20,000
PreServe will expand its post industrial recycled plastic grinding capacity by purchasing a large capacity and heavy duty grinder and supporting equipment.
Reily Recovery Services, Inc.
$25,000
Reily Recovery Services will purchase a flatbed truck with hydraulic boom and forklift attachment; and acquire and distribute 100 specially designed collection boxes for recycled vinyl siding.
28
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
GRANTEE AMOUNT GRANT DESCRIPTION
Scotland Neck Heart Pine
$20,000
Scotland Neck Heart Pine will purchase and install an in-line gang ripsaw for re-dimensioning sawn planks recovered from old buildings.
Shimar Recycling
$20,000
Shimar will install a horizontal baler to assist in their ability to process a greater amount of material more economically and efficiently.
Synergy Recycling
$20,000
Synergy will purchase a 26" box truck with lift-gate to assist in the "milk run" collection of electronics from customers around the state.
Union Gypsum
$45,000
Union Gypsum will add a new building and equipment to process gypsum drywall, poultry litter, and sawdust.
Weyerhaeuser
$35,000
Weyerhaeuser will install equipment to expand processing capacity for commercial office paper and cardboard. (NOTE: Grant turned down when Weyerhaeuser implemented alternative paper recovery plans).
29
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 4
STATE AGENCY WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS
State law and executive order directs state agencies to use products containing recycled materials. Executive Order 156 was signed in 1999 in support of N.C. Project Green, the state environmental sustainability initiative, and was an updating and strengthening of the original initiative of Executive Order 8, signed in 1993.2 Purchasing recycled and other environmentally preferable products improves recycling markets, helps reduce environmental impacts from waste, and saves energy and natural resources. Many state agencies and local school districts help achieve these goals through thoughtful purchasing decisions and the use of recycled content products.
North Carolina state government has continued to make progress toward environmental sustainability by offering recycled and environmentally preferable products at affordable prices on state contract. Currently, over 20 categories are on term contract that offer products with recycled content materials, and several more products available offer some sort of environmentally preferable attribute, including recycled content packaging or energy efficiency. State agencies, and others who can buy from state term contract such as local governments, have a wide degree of choice in the purchase of high quality, cost-effective recycled products on term contract. The list of products is available at: www.doa.state.nc.us/PandC/recycled.htm
This chapter summarizes the efforts of state agencies to purchase recycled products. It fulfills the reporting mandate of N.C. General Statute 143-58.2(f) for fiscal year 2004. It compiles purchasing reports required from 26 state government department and offices, 16 constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina, 57 community colleges, and 96 local public school administrative units. In FY 03-04, reports were received from 88 percent of agencies (195 out of 221), 2 percent more than the previous fiscal year. Most of the agencies that did not report have not complied with reporting requirements for at least the past four years. This data fluctuates somewhat each year. For example, twelve agencies that did not report last year reported this year and eight agencies that usually report did not report this year. All reporting was conducted online, saving paper and postage.
The N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) is the agency charged with compiling data from agency reports and publishing this summary. Copies of this and past reports are available on-line at www.p2pays.org/epp or by calling (919) 715-6505 or (800) 763-0136.
Purchases of Recycled Products
Paper and Paper Products. Reported agency purchases of all office paper and paper products (recycled and non-recycled) in FY 03-04 totaled $43,733,680. Last year’s paper purchases were reported at $41,284,807, which reflects a six percent increase in overall paper purchases from the previous year. Over the last five years, state paper consumption has maintained a steady rate, as electronic communication has grown and spending constraints have leveled off.
Recycled paper purchases were up 3.5 percent from the previous fiscal year and totaled $33,555,918. Recycled paper constituted 77 percent of total paper purchases reported, a two percent decrease from last year. True purchases of recycled content paper and paper products probably are not apparent because some purchasers were not aware that it was the only paper on state term contract. This year the decrease reflects the virgin paper that is now back on state term contract and available at a lower price. The recycled content paper is a little over a dollar more than virgin paper, but the current contract also includes a higher delivery charge for recycled content paper. Although waste reduction techniques, such as double-sided printing and using one-sided pages for fax machines could easily neutralize the difference, this setback could prove to be significant in reaching goals set by executive order.
2 Full text of No. 156 is available online at www.p2pays.org/epp/reports.asp.
30
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
This is the third year in which agencies failed to meet the goal set forth by Executive Order 156 3 “State agencies shall attempt to meet the goal that, as of FY 00-01, 100 percent of the total dollar value of expenditures for paper and paper products be toward purchases of paper and paper products with recycled content.” Unfortunately, due to some of the issues discussed, recycled content office paper only represented 79 percent of the total office paper purchases, which is a 5 percent decrease from last year.
More than half of the miscellaneous paper purchased, including items such as legal pads, file folders, labels, and continuous feed forms contain recycled content materials. This is a category that has remained consistent for the last seven years. Education could easily improve the numbers, especially considering many of these products are available on term contracts with recycled content. More positively, towel/tissue paper achieved an exceptionally high percentage of 91 percent containing recycled content, which is a 3 percent increase from last year.
Twenty-seven agencies succeeded in reaching the 100 percent goal this fiscal year for all paper purchases, four more than last year. This is a slowly climbing number that hopefully represents an overall effort to reach compliance under the executive order. Another 33 agencies achieved a recycled content paper purchasing rate of 95 percent or higher, and 45 percent of all agencies reporting bought recycled paper for 90 percent of their paper usage needs. About a quarter of reporting agencies purchased all their office paper with recycled content, and over a third bought all recycled content towel/tissue products.
As another element of recycled paper usage, agencies also report on their specification of recycled content products in contracted work. Approximately 56 percent of agencies consistently specified recycled content in contracted services last fiscal year. Reported spending on outside print orders was $15,161,323, a two percent increase from the previous year. Of the reported total, 51 percent was on recycled paper, down from 65 percent last year. This decrease in recycled content paper used on print jobs could reflect the cost differential from recycled content to virgin paper. Figure 1. State Agency Total Purchases of Recycled Paper and Paper ProductsFiscal Years 1994-2004$-$10,000,000$20,000,000$30,000,000$40,000,000$50,000,00019941995199619971998199920002001200220032004Total Recycled Paper Purchases0%20%40%60%80%100%Percent of Total PurchasesAnnual Purchases of Recycled PaperPercent of Total Paper Purchases
Figure 1 illustrates the trend in overall dollar amounts and percentages of recycled paper purchases over the past eleven fiscal years, including this year’s increase in overall recycled content paper purchases. The data indicates a need to enhance efforts to achieve the 100 percent goal across all agencies. A renewed emphasis and commitment from top management in directing agencies to meet the statutory and executive goals would help the accomplishment of the goal. There is an obvious need for a targeted campaign of outreach to agencies with a high level of virgin paper purchasing.
Policy and Administrative Support This year, agencies were again asked to report if they had buy-recycled policies or goals in place. A mere 38 percent of the reporting agencies responded positively to
3 G.S. 143-58.3 established a goal that at least 50 percent of all agency expenditures for paper and paper products are comprised of recycled product purchases. Executive Order No. 8 set a goal for agency expenditures of recycled paper and paper products of 65 percent in Fiscal Year 1998. Executive Order No. 156 reestablished the goal at 100 percent by the Year 2001.
31
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
this question, which reflects a slight increase from last year, perhaps from the new agencies that reported. Agencies are also reporting that fewer administrators are communicating the importance of purchasing recycled content products. Consistent with past year’s data, only slightly more than half of the agencies report receiving this message, and this percentage is on a continual decrease since 1997. Lead coordinators for buy-recycled efforts hold steady at less than half of the reporting agencies having this kind of administrative support. The general statutes or executive order does not require agencies to develop a policy, but it could be the first step to improving our State’s efficiency in recycled content product purchases. Agencies are responsible for purchasing recycled content products, as well as designating a lead coordinator. Executive Order 156 requires administrator encouragement, which is a key component to a successful recycled content procurement program. Examining these factors could be a way to increase participation significantly.
Non-Paper Products Agencies reported spending $14,593,230 on non-paper recycled products in FY 03-04, up 27 percent from the previous year’s expenditures. This number continues to increase as purchasers become more educated about the products they buy, and as the array of recycled products increase and become more available on term contracts and through vendors. Examples include remanufactured laser toner cartridges, plastic can liners, recapped tires, plastic lumber, compost and mulch, re-refined motor oil, carpet and uniforms.
Total expenditures of the recycled non-paper products reflect numbers similar to last year. They are illustrated below in Figure 2. The size of the colored categories represents the total dollars of purchases in that category and the height in that fiscal year represents total purchases of non-paper recycled products. Reports revealed minor fluctuations in most categories with the exception of building materials, which decreased from $150,296 last year to $32,414 this year. There is nearly a 60 percent increase in the “other” category though, which may reflect some of these expenditures. Re-refined motor oil purchases were also down by 34 percent, which could be a result of some changes over the past fiscal year in the contract. This contract is going out for bid again in FY 04-05 and will hopefully yield a stable, cost efficient, reliable vendor that can maintain the contract for a more significant time. Figure 2. Agency Purchases of NonPaperRecycled Content Products Fiscal Years 2000-2004$0$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000$10,000,000$12,000,000$14,000,000$16,000,00020002001200220032004Fiscal YearValueOtherBuilding MaterialsCompost/MulchRecapped TiresPlastic LumberCan LinersOffice SuppliesRe-refined Motor OilUniformsCarpetContainersToner Cartridges
Other Environmental Purchasing Efforts. Some state agencies excelled beyond buying recycled, and now tackle more sustainable issues like environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP). EPP, or gpurchasing, includes a host of attributes considered to decrease the impact of purchases on the environment. For example, many agencies, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel HilNorth Carolina State University, Fayetteville Technical Community College, and the Department of Transportation, started green building initiatives for new facilities or added greening energy and water elements in older buildings. Green buildings require architects and contractors to consider many things
from building placement, water and energy use, and more environmentally friendly products. 32
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Other initiatives in state government include the vast efforts of Motor Fleet Management to increase environmental initiatives. Of Motor Fleet’s nearly 8,000 vehicles, over 3,300 vehicles are alternative fuecars and 46 are hybri
c
fleet vehicles.
Conclusion The purchase of recycled content products is a well-established practice in state government, supported by statutory and executive order requirements, as well as state term contracts that offer high qualityaffordable recycled content choices for state purchasers. Still, progress must be made to bring agencies to full compliance with the 100 percent recycled content paper goal. The accomplishmen
a
management support and increased overall awareness of requirements and products. With a few significant purchasing decisions, several key agencies could substantially increase the performance of state government in recycled paper purchasing. Converting the current $10.2 millvirgin paper purchases to recycled paper will allow North Carolina state government to contribute substantially to the strength of recycling markets. As a major player in the collection of paper for recycling, state government stands to benefit directly from improved markets. The use of recycled products will also help North Carolina achieve its environmental goals by reducing natural resource, energy and water usage, and preventing air and water pollution. For example, re-refin
th
comparable cost to vi
Recommendations
T
state government meet goals set forth in both Executive Order 156 and general statutes. I. Reinvigorate Executive Order 156. While Executive Order 156 continues to carry weight with mostate agencies, a reissuance will provide a new focus and create additional support for recycled copurchasing. It will also strengthen the ability
agency purchases. Strong and active gubernatorial support can help the state successfully meet executive and legislatively mandated goals. II. Increase administrative support and educational programs. Disparity among agencies in tdegree of support and routine communication received from top management may be the most signifibarrier to increased agency participation in recycling and recycled content product procurement. Administrative support is also crucial to the successful implementation of agency sustainability plans under N.C. Project Green
p
rocurement. For those agencies that have not yet prioritized waste reduction and buying recycled, it is recommended that they:

Implement and adhere to the goals of Executive Order 156, which states that all paper purchased have a minimum of 30 percent post-consumer content (by FY 00-01).

Issue and enforce internal policies, official memoranda, and formal declarations that demonstrate administrative leadership and support for buying recy

Develop and implement ongoing outreach and education programs for employees and visitors and take advantage of the assistance DPPEA can offer.
 Commit to N.C. Project Green by participating in their monthly meetings and pledging to achieve its goals as part of their overall commitment to environmental sustainability. III. Increase Procurement of Non-Paper Recycled Content Products. Outright expenditures for nonpaper recycled products continue to lag behind those of paper purchases. A vast variety of products is available with recycled content materials, which is apparent from the federal government’s purchasinregulations under Executive Order 13101. Their Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines feature over fifty items in eight categories, including paper, non-paper office, construction, landscaping, park and
33
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
34
recycling and
cled products purchased through agency
egations.
aterials and supplies by contracted services, especially in
agencies can begin to make purchasing decisions that will be of
ion of
s, nonprofit
information). Purchasing a diverse array of recycled content products not only strengthens job markets in North Carolina, it also helps agencies fulfill their obligation to become more
e
nvironmentally sustainable. To improve overall buy recycled efforts, state agencies should:  Expand the quantity and variety of non-paper recy
c
onvenience contracts and state term contracts.

Enforce purchasing rules that mandate buying from state term contract above in-house del

Establish or upgrade electronic tracking systems for all recycled product purchases.  Specify or encourage the use of recycled m
construction, housekeeping, and printing. IV. Make Purchasing Decisions Based On Full Environmental Impact Versus One-Time Cost. To determine the full environmental impact of a product or service, it is important to look at the full life cycle analysis of a product. By doing so, state
b
enefit in both the short and long term.  Begin looking at products in terms of broad environmental impacts including: durability, energy efficiency, performance, recycled content and recyclability, toxicity, biodegradability, locatmanufacturer (local availability), and packaging. Utilize government programorganizations, and third party certifiers for assistance, including US EPA (www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp/index.htm), Green Seal (www.greenseal.org), Energy Star
(
www.energystar.gov), and American Forest and Paper Associations (www.afandpa.org).  Develop guidelines and
e
nvironmental impact.

ting procedures so that agencies can receive credit for environmental pu
Alamance Community Colle
Alexander County Schools
Appalachian State University
Ashe County Board of E
Asheboro City Schools
Carteret County Schools
Central Piedmont Commun
Edenton-Chowan Schools
Fayetteville Technical Com
Franklin County Schools
Guilford County Schools
Johnston County Schools
Mitchell County Schools
N
Pamlico Community Colle
Pamlico County Schools
Pembroke State Universi
Pender County Schools
Piedmont Community College
Roanoke Rapids City Scho
Sampson Count
UNC Charlotte
UNC Greensboro
Wake Technical Commu
Wilkes County Schools
Wilson Technical Community Col
Administrative Office of the Courts
Alleghany County Board
Avery County Schools
Bertie County Schools
Catawba County Schools
Cherokee County Schools
Clay County Board of
Clinton City Schools
Columbus County Scho
Dare County Schools
Edgecombe Community College
Elizabeth City State Unive
Hoke County Board of Ed
Kannapolis City Schools
Kings Mountain District Schools
Lenoir County Public Scho
Madison County Schools
Orange County Schools
Pasquotank County S
Pitt County Schools
Robeson County Public Sch
Thomasville City
UNC Hospitals
WNC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 5
WHITE GOODS MANAGEMENT
"White goods" are defined in G.S. 130A-290 (a)(44) as, "refrigerators, ranges, water heaters, freezers, unit air conditioners, washing machines, dishwashers, and clothes dryers and other similar domestic and commercial large appliances."
Key Findings

County governments are managing increasing numbers of white goods. County white goods programs continue to prevent the wide-scale illegal dumping of white goods by offering disposal, at no cost, to the citizen.

A number of counties will continue to be dependent on cost over-run grants for the near future, in order to finance their operating costs. Several counties with high operating expenses should reevaluate their program.

The number of counties requesting cost over-run grants stayed roughly the same while the amounts requested fell.

Total money requested by counties for cost over-run grants decreased approximately 20 percent and probably is due to an increase in the value of scrap metal in overseas markets.

Some counties appear to be slow in exploiting the rising value of their scrap metals. Counties with existing contracts and arrangements with haulers and recyclers are unable or unwilling to re-negotiate more profitable conditions.

The revenues of the White Goods Grants Program continue to fall due to the decreasing numbers of ineligible counties.

Cost over-run grant amounts requested are expected to swell when the present sharp increase in the value of scrap metal subsides, leading to greater financial strain on the program.

Greater accountability by counties can ensure that white goods revenues fund white goods expenses.
This interim report is based on information supplied by counties' Annual Financial Information Reports, submitted to the Office of State Treasurer. AFIRs are due by Dec. 1.. Fifty-four counties had submitted by Dec. 23, 2004. A final report will be available on the Solid Waste Section Web site, http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/, when the remaining counties submit their AFIRs. Aside from many AFIRs being late, many have blank or erroneous entries.
Counties that did not report as of December 23, 2004
Beaufort
Bertie
Buncombe
Burke
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Cherokee
Chowan
Clay
Columbus
Davidson
Davie
Franklin
Gates
Graham
Halifax
Henderson
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Jackson
Lincoln
Mitchell
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
Northampton
Pamlico
Perquimans
Pender
Pitt
Richmond
Robeson
Rowan
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Watauga
Wayne
Yancey
Financial Update

The white goods management account no longer runs a large surplus. The number of counties that forfeit their tax proceeds declined significantly while grant requests declined only slightly. In FY 98-99, 42 counties forfeited tax proceeds. However, by the fourth quarter of FY 03-04, only eight counties had forfeited their proceeds.
35
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04

The amount of forfeited funds available for redistribution dropped 75 percent in recent grant periods, at the same time that county requests for cost overrun grants have recently decreased approximately 20 percent.

Many counties that allowed reserve funds to accrue in the past are now depleting those funds to pay for daily operations and program infrastructure.
Advance Disposal Fee
Net white goods ADF collections in FY 03-04 totaled $4,512,673.73 and dispersed as follows:
$ 3,093,284.73 Allocated for direct distribution to counties
$ 859,245.76 Allocated for white goods management account
$ 343,698.30 Solid Waste Management trust fund
$ 216,445.94 N.C. Revenue Department cost of collections
$ 2,553,991.73 Actual amount distributed directly to counties
$ 539,293.00 Forfeited by ineligible counties
Although $ 3,093,284.73 (72 percent of the net disposal fee collections) is for distribution, ineligible counties forfeited $539,293. The forfeited funds went to the white goods management account, which receives 20 percent of net collections.
White Goods Management Account
The impetus of the White Goods Management Account is to help counties whose costs exceed their share of ADF revenue. The account receives twenty percent of white goods ADF revenues. It also receives funds forfeited by counties whose surplus exceeds the threshold amount. By the end of FY 03-04, the White Goods Management Account had $1,030,414 in projected commitments and a balance of $898,588.75, which was slightly lower than the starting balance of $979,084.93. These commitments include $500,000 for grant request for the first half of the next fiscal year and $530,414 for capital improvement grant obligations. This account is used to fund counties that incur deficits in their white goods accounts and provide capital improvement funds to counties to upgrade program infrastructure. Counties received $200,119.45 in excess of the proceeds received for distribution in FY 03-04.
WHITE GOODS DISPOSAL ACCOUNT BALANCE FY 03-04
Beginning Balance (July 1, 2003)
$ 979,084.93
Funds Received during FY 03-04
$ 1,398,538.76
Cost Overrun Grants Disbursed in FY 03-04
$ 987,933.30
Capital Improvement Grants Paid in FY 03-04
$ 610,724.91
Monies Needed for Future Grant Awards*
$ 1,030,414.00
Ending Balance (June 30, 2004)
$ 898,588.75
*Includes $530,414 reserved for capitol improvement grants and $500,000 reserved for next
round of overrun grants. Increase in Total Requests for White Goods Grants$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000$1,000,0001998Jan-98Jun1998Jul-98Dec1999Jan-99Jun1999Jul-99Dec2000Jan-00Jun2000Jul-00Dec2001Jan-01Jun2001Jul-01Dec2002Jan-02Jun2002Jul-02Dec2003Jan-03Jun2003Jul-03Dec2004Jan-04Jun
White Goods Management Account Grants
This graph shows total amounts of money requested by counties for cost over-run grants in recent grant periods decreased. This probably is due to the increasing value of scrap metal. Over $385,450 in grants went to 30 counties for losses incurred January-June 2004; $463,885.06 was
36
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
distributed to 34 counties for losses incurred July-December 2003.
Sixteen counties received capital improvement grants totaling $610,724.91. In FY 03-04, counties requested $1,460,060.09 in cost overrun and capitol improvement grants, but the fee produced only $1,398,538.76 in revenues.
As the graph shows, the total of the amounts requested have decreased gradually but slightly in recent grant periods. As the following graph depicts, the amount of available funds dropped significantly at the same time grant requests declined only slightly.
White Goods Revenues Received Since the Year 2000 $0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000Feb-00May-00Aug-00Nov-00Feb-01May-01Aug-01Nov-01Feb-02May-02Aug-02Nov-02Feb-03May-03Aug-03Nov-03Feb-04May-04Aug-04Fiscal Quarter ForfeitedRegular
Note: Blank areas indicate no revenue received
Program Results
Grant and ADF funding made it possible to clean up illegal dumpsites. Previously, many counties gave white goods a low priority and under-funded their management. The white goods account makes it possible for counties to obtain the specialized equipment or collection/loading areas needed to improve white goods management.
In FY 03-04, 54 county collection sites took in 44,715 tons, or an estimated 1,117,875 appliances. This compares to the 25,749 tons, or 644,000 appliances, collected in FY 91-92 by all counties. Without the program, dumping or stockpiling large numbers of appliances could occur.
White Goods Management by County Governments
In 1989, legislation banned white goods from landfills to encourage recycling and better management. Comprehensive white goods management laws enacted in 1993 included an ADF. In 1998, Senate Bill 124 extended the fee for 3 years but reduced it from $10 to $3. Removal of the sunset occurred in 2000.
The major accomplishment of the program is a drastic reduction in illegal dumping of white goods. The critical factor was requiring local governments to provide collection sites at no cost to citizens. Counties can use ADF proceeds to clean sites dependent on the percentage of white goods at the site.
Another accomplishment came when counties implemented proper management practices to capture and recycle carbon fluorocarbons. The practice avoids illegal venting into the atmosphere and creates a potential profit center.
37
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Though the white goods program has had many accomplishments, some problems remain. These include the limited accountability by counties to assure the exclusive use of tax disbursements and grants solely for the management of white goods.
Many local governments are privatizing their white goods management. Overall, privatization does not necessarily mean that programs are more efficient. In many instances privatized white goods management incorporated into a more comprehensive solid waste contract between a local government and a private firm, makes it difficult to measure program efficiency.
Counties That Forfeited Funds
Counties That Became Ineligible for Advance Disposal Fees In March 2004
(Based on FY 02-03 AFIR Reports)
Beaufort
Bertie
Caswell
Chowan
Columbus
Currituck
Dare
Durham
Forsyth
Franklin
Gates
Haywood
Hertford
Hoke
Jones
Macon
Montgomery
Pamlico
Pender
Polk
Richmond
Robeson
Sampson
Tyrrell
Wake
Wilkes
Yadkin
Counties That Will Become Ineligible for Advance Disposal Fees In March 2005
(Based on FY 03-04 AFIR Reports)
Counties that will not receive ADF distributions because undesignated balances exceed their threshold.
Anson
Jones
Catawba
Polk
Forsyth
Sampson
Granville
Surry
Counties that do not submit their AFIR by March 1, 2005 will be ineligible to receive tax proceeds.
White Goods Management Costs
Counties can use the white goods ADF proceeds disbursed quarterly by the Department of Revenue for daily expenses incurred to recycle white goods. Funds for one-time expenses, such as purchasing specialized equipment and making site improvements for better management, is also an option for local governments. Many county programs are not self-sustaining and require subsidies. Expenses for these programs include fuel, labor and the cost of associated items. Poor planning design is a major factor in counties with low and high program costs. This means that counties with minimal costs are not necessarily more efficient than counties with high costs. Some counties with low program costs are marginally in compliance with the law’s intent.
The 54 reporting counties spent $3,663,561.00 in FY 03-04. Of this total, $3,004,803 was for daily operations, $419,751 for capital improvements, and $143,883 to clean up illegal disposal sites.
Counties with high per unit costs usually have extensive programs, a cost allocation plan, lack a local market, or have a combination of these factors. Counties with little or no disposal costs tend to have minimal programs, poor record keeping, access to a local market or a combination of these factors. Only a few counties have metals recyclers willing to provide free pickup from county collection sites and/or provide CFC recovery in exchange for access to the scrap metal.
38
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
39
Highest Operating Costs Reported
County
Cost per ton
Cost per appliance*
Washington
$343.77
$13.75
Alexander
$328.43
$13.14
Gaston
$319.21
$12.77
Cumberland
$211.30
$ 8.45
Durham
$161.17
$ 6.45
Orange
$151.09
$ 6.04
Harnett
$131.61
$ 5.26
Mecklenburg
$122.71
$ 4.91
Ashe
$122.07
$ 4.88
Cleveland
$109.85
$ 4.39
Lowest Operating Costs Reported
County
Cost per ton
Cost per appliance*
Anson
$ 0.56
$0.02
Iredell
$ 1.86
$0.07
Cabarrus
$ 5.56
$0.22
Wilson
$ 6.70
$0.27
Guilford
$10.97
$0.44
Caldwell
$18.89
$0.76
Granville
$20.89
$0.84
Greene
$25.40
$1.02
Catawba
$25.97
$1.04
Forsyth
$27.47
$1.10
*Estimate assumes an average appliance weight of 80 pounds.
Outsourcing loading and transport to the recycler can reduce some costs. Other counties use in-house labor to sort and segregate metals, recover CFCs or extract motors or oil. Overall, operating costs by counties do not seem restricted by geography. Instead, analysis suggests that a correlation to distance to markets, extent of programs, extent of record keeping, and cost allocation plans among counties have a greater effect on county costs.
Tonnage Collected by Counties
In FY 03-04, 54 counties reported processing 44,715 tons of white goods. This translates into 1,117,875 individual appliances (assuming 25 appliances per ton), or about .14 appliances per person in North Carolina.
For information on a specific county program, please see the Data, Statistics, Reports and Planning page on the Solid Waste Section Web site (http://wastenotnc.org). NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 6
SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT
Scrap Tire Disposal Account
The 1993 General Assembly created the Scrap Tire Disposal Account (STDA). The account receives 27 percent of its revenues from the Scrap Tire Disposal Tax initiated Oct. 1, 1993. The 2002 General Assembly removed of the sunset on the Scrap Tire Disposal Tax.
Beginning in October 1992, 25 percent of the STDA fund was allocated for cost overrun grants to counties and 75 percent was allocated for clean up of nuisance tire sites. Starting with the Aug. 12, 1997 distribution, the fund allocates 50 percent for cost overrun grants, 10 percent for clean up of nuisance tire sites and 40 percent for processed tire material market development grants.
Balance of Funds as of July 1, 2003
$3,544,238.55
Deposits Received FY 2003-2004
$3.097,427.30
Total Funds in Account
$6,641,665.85
Grants to County Scrap Tire Programs
$1,649,566.67
Nuisance Tire Site Cleanup Program
$176,230.87
Processed Tire Material Grants
$514,196.90
Balance of Funds as of June 30, 2004
$4,301,671.41
Obligated funds as of June 30, 2004*
$3,116,399.45
Net Balance of Funds as of June 30, 2004*
$1,185,271.96
* $3,116,399.45 obligated: $757,101.95 for tire cleanup, $2,359,297.50 for tire recycling grants under contract and under negotiation
Tire Tax Distribution
Per capita distribution to counties from the state's tire disposal tax revenue, initiated October 1993, amounts to 68 percent. In the past year, the total amount distributed was $7,749,883.99. This subsidized tire disposal costs for the counties, but did not cover many counties' total expenses. The total distributed to the counties represented 75 percent of the total reported disposal costs of $10,379,216.51. This provided an average of 74 cents for each of the 10.5 million scrap tires handled by the counties.
On Jan.1, 1994, counties stopped charging fees to dispose of tires that were certified as generated in North Carolina (per G.S. 130A-309.58). Counties may charge a fee for tires presented for disposal that do not present a scrap tire certification form verifying the tires were generated in North Carolina.
Counties whose scrap tire costs exceed the amount they receive in their allocation of the tire tax, can apply for a grant to cover the deficit. For the first grant cycle of FY 03-04, 61 counties requested $1,011,560 and were awarded $821,583. In the second grant cycle, 61 counties requested $1,107,106 and received $816,985.
Funds are available to help counties whose costs exceed their allocation. Historically, the amount of grant funds requested by counties has surpassed availability. Scrap tire legislation requires the waste management division to consider county efforts to avoid free, out-of-state tire disposal and county program efficiency when making decisions about grant awards.
Grant Period
10/97 – 3/98
4/98 – 9/98
10/98 – 3/99
4/99 - 9/99
10/99 - 3/00
4/00 – 9/00
Funds Available
$976,245.51
$687,847.37
$633,761.66
$699,950.87
$663,467.43
$751,295.88
Funds Awarded
$602,778.28
$644,334.67
$583,093.00
$666,042.36
$786,511.24
$799,500.85
Grant Requests
41
45
46
56
53
53
Funds Requested
$677,682.00
$761,308.00
$781,603.00
$816,004.63
$842,931.37
$898,907.67
Grant Period
10/00 – 3/01
4/01 – 9/01
10/01 – 3/02
4/02 - 9/02
10/02 - 3/03
4/03 - 9/03
Funds Available
$700,221.11
$ 0*
$ 0*
$ 792,399.37
$ 694,963.10
$ 788,202.47
Funds Awarded
$709,226.95
$804,004.00
$ 811,050.00
$ 820,685.00
$ 821,583.00
$ 816,985.00
Grant Requests
51
56
53
57
60
61
Funds Requested
$730,709.37
$992,564.00
$1,024,935.00
$1,052,145.00
$1,011,560.00
$1,107,106.00
*Used balance in other STDA fund.
40
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Grants Awarded
The goal of the division’s grant program is to make scrap tire recycling sustainable in North Carolina. This goal can be met. We anticipate awarding grants for manufacturing rubber products such as mats, auto parts, gaskets, flooring material, tire derived fuel, new tire manufacturing and other applications.
The Processed Scrap Tire Material Market Development Grants program received its first allocation of funding in August 1997. Grants awarded to date are:

Roll-Tech, Inc., Hickory, N.C. $212,420
Construct additional molds to increase hard rubber tire manufacture
COMPLETED

Continental Tire, Inc., Charlotte, N.C. $1,520,000
Develop “tire to tire” technology with 25 percent recycled content goal
COMPLETED

Jackson Paper, Inc., Sylva, N.C. $377,000
Boiler modifications for tire derived fuel
COMPLETED

N.C. State University, Raleigh, N.C. $38,291
Tooling development for scrap tire recycling
COMPLETED

TIRES, Inc., Winston-Salem, N.C. $320,000
Produce playground/industrial mats
COMPLETED

Texas Encore Materials, Inc. (Carolina Materials LLC), Belmont, N.C. $983,360
Manufacture extruded sheets from processed tire material

Roll-Tech LLC, Hickory, N.C. $855,937
Equipment acquisition for manufacturing solid rubber wheels
Tire Cleanup Program
Of the 358 identified nuisance tire sites in North Carolina, 335 are now clean and 20 sites have cleanups underway. The remaining three sites are either under investigation or enforcement action. Counties are encouraged to locate and clean all small tire sites through countywide cleanup activities.
Status
Number of Sites
Total Known Tires
Total Tires
Cleared Tires
Cleaned Up
335
7,484,566
93%
7,484,566
Under Clean Up
20
493,845
6%
123,530
Remaining Sites
3
17,708
1%
0
TOTAL
358
7,996,119
100%
7,608,096
The law requires the division to first address nuisance tire sites that pose the greatest threat to public health and the environment. At the start of the program, efforts and actions to clean top priority sites were developed and initiated, as funds were available. As cleanup funds were received through quarterly distributions, additional priority sites were cleaned.
The division has established and implemented a specific cleanup plan for each known nuisance tire site. With discovery of new sites, prompt investigation leads to a cleanup plan for each site within 30 days. Implementing the plan as soon as possible minimizes potential threats to human health and the environment. The section is committed to the North Carolina Big Sweep program, with reimbursements going to counties that request funds to dispose of scrap tires collected by the statewide event.
To date, STDA funds cleaned 188 nuisance tire sites. Cost recovery efforts collected $366,366.16 from responsible parties for nine of these sites. Two sites are under cost recovery action.
As a cost saving measure, minimum-security inmates have removed over 600,000 tires from nuisance sites. Counties utilizing inmate labor in nuisance tire cleanups are: Anson, Bladen, Buncombe, Burke,
41
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Camden, Chatham, Chowan, Cleveland, Columbus, Craven, Davidson, Halifax, Harnett, Iredell, Lee, Moore, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Perquimans, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Washington and Yadkin.
Scrap Tire Generation
The U.S. EPA standard to estimate scrap tire generation is one tire per person, per year.4 Based upon the 2003 North Carolina population of approximately 8.4 million residents, tire generation is estimated as equal. This includes passenger, truck, and tires for special uses, such as off-road equipment and tractors. Counties report tires received in either tons or the number of tires. A ton of tires consists of 100 passenger tires, 20 truck tires, or four off-road tires (tractors and other large off-road equipment).
In FY 03-04, counties reported receiving tires in three size categories: 81 percent passenger car tires, 15 percent heavy truck tires and 4 percent of

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

North Carolina
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Annual Report
JULY 1, 2003 - JUNE 30, 2004
State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Reduce--Reuse--Recycle Acknowledgements
This is the 13th annual status report prepared by the Solid Waste Section, Division of Waste Management and the Business and Community Assistance Section, Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. Special thanks go to the following staff for providing data and information for this annual report:
Jim Coffey, Solid Waste Section, Chief
Paul Crissman, Solid Waste Section, Environmental Programs Manager
Linda Culpepper, Division of Waste Management, Deputy Director
Rachel Eckert, Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance
Cheryl Hannah, Solid Waste Section
Jim Hickman, Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance
Brian Ketchem, Department of Transportation
Dexter Matthews, Division of Waste Management, Director
Pam Moore, Solid Waste Section
Scott Mouw, Community & Business Section, Chief
Bill Patrakis, Solid Waste Section
Percy Richardson, Department of Administration
Brent Rockett, Solid Waste Section
John Sharp, Department of Transportation
Rebecca Sluder, Solid Waste Section
The Solid Waste Section would like to thank the county managers, solid waste directors and recycling coordinators who provided much of the information used in this report.
For information on specific programs, contact:
North Carolina Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1301
(919) 807-2425
http://www.doa.state.nc.us
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1646
(919) 733-4996
http://wastenotnc.org
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance
1639 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1639
(919) 715-6500
http://www.p2pays.org
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1591 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1591
(919) 250-4128
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us
250 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $782.15 or $3.12 per copy.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004
CHAPTER 1 PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE...........................................................................................4
KEY FINDINGS............................................................................................................................................4
RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................................4
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL.............................................................................................................................5
LANDFILL CAPACITY NEEDS..........................................................................................................................6
FUTURE WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS................................................................................................................7
STATE WASTE REDUCTION GOAL.................................................................................................................8
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INITIATIVE.................................................................................................................9
IMPORTS & EXPORTS..................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 2 GOVERNMENT WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES...........................................................11
SOURCE REDUCTION AND REUSE PROGRAMS.............................................................................................11
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECOVERY PROGRAMS.............................................................................................11
RECYCLING MARKETS, PRICES, AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTS...................................................................16
TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS...........................................................................................17
KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE...............................................................................20
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND.................................................................................................20
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES...........................................................................................................22
PUBLICATIONS AND OUTREACH EFFORTS....................................................................................................23
PLANNED EXPENDITURES FOR FY 04-05....................................................................................................24
ATTACHMENT A: TRUST FUND REVENUE SOURCES.....................................................................................25
ATTACHMENT B: 2004 COMMUNITY WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANT PROJECTS........................26
ATTACHMENT C: 2004 RECYCLING BUSINESS GRANT PROJECTS.................................................................28
CHAPTER 4 STATE AGENCY WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS............................................................30
PURCHASES OF RECYCLED PRODUCTS.......................................................................................................30
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 5 WHITE GOODS MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................35
KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................35
CHAPTER 6 SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................40
SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL ACCOUNT...............................................................................................................40
GRANTS AWARDED...................................................................................................................................41
TIRE CLEANUP PROGRAM.........................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.............................................................................46
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.........................................................................................................46
ATTACHMENT #1: FISCAL YEAR 2004 TOTALS......................................................................................47
ATTACHMENT #2: TOTALS (JANUARY, 1989 - JUNE, 2004)...................................................................48
CHAPTER 8 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION...............................................................................51
E-PROCUREMENT @YOUR SERVICE..........................................................................................................51
OPEN MARKET AWARDS...........................................................................................................................52
STATEWIDE TERM CONTRACTS...................................................................................................................52
APPENDIX A-1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MSW LANDFILLS
APPENDIX A-2 SCRAP TIRE MONOFILLS
APPENDIX A-3 INCINERATION FACILITIES
APPENDIX A-4 PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS
APPENDIX A-5 TRANSFER STATIONS AND MIXED WASTE PROCESSING FACILITIES
APPENDIX B COUNTY PER CAPITA RATE
APPENDIX C IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
TOTAL LANDFILL CAPACITY FOR NC
MSW LANDFILL CAPACITY ANALYSIS (BY COUNTY)N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 1
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
This consolidated annual report is required by the North Carolina General Assembly in G.S. 130A-309.06, as amended in 2001. The information presented is from 522 (100 county and 422 municipal) local government annual reports, 332 (including 15 out-of-state) permitted solid waste management facilities and 195 state agencies, institutions and schools. These reports represent activities related to the management of solid waste for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
This report combines several annual reports that were once issued separately by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The reports were the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Report, the Scrap Tire Disposal Account Report, the White Goods Management Report and the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund Report. This report also includes information from the Department of Transportation regarding its use of recycled materials in contracts and data from the Department of Administration on bid procedures, the purchase of materials with recycled content and a summary of items purchased with recycled content.
Key Findings

The state per capita disposal rate is 1.27 tons per person per year, a 4 percent increase over the 1.23 rate from last fiscal year or an increase of 18 percent from the FY 91-92 base year.

North Carolina communities disposed of 10,713,444 tons of waste in North Carolina and out-of-state facilities. This represents an increase of 476,484 tons from the previous fiscal year.

North Carolina permitted solid waste management landfills received a total of 9,674,396 tons of solid waste during FY 03-04. Almost 109,000 tons originated from other states, a decrease of 24,342 import tons over the previous period. South Carolina and Virginia accounted for all imported waste.

Ten North Carolina counties with 39 percent of the population accounted for 46 percent of the solid waste disposed in the state. Sixty-two counties exported at least some waste to landfills in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.

Major materials recovered by North Carolina local governments during FY 03-04 were fiber (55 percent), metals (23 percent) and glass (11 percent).

For the fifth straight year the number of local government curbside programs declined, although the number of households served grew.

Measurable and steady progress toward waste reduction initiatives do not appear evident in the 2003 version of local government ten-year solid waste management plans. A majority of the county solid waste programs are reactive rather than progressive.

NC continues to rely heavily on exporting waste. Over one million tons of waste was exported in FY 03-04 compared to 108,000 imported tons.
Recommendations
Again, most North Carolina counties have not halted the trend of increased waste generation and disposal. The state has moved forward with improvements to the state’s solid waste management methods. Gains include better record keeping, the ability to calculate landfill capacity, enhanced public participation and additional strategic planning. However, the goal of decreasing per capita waste disposal is not progressing. To decrease future waste disposal it is vital to implement the following goals:

Increase source reduction, municipal solid waste recycling and source-separated composting of organics to reduce the need for additional municipal solid waste disposal capacity as the population grows and predicted per capita disposal amounts increase.

Enhance infrastructure and markets to increase source reduction and both MSW and special waste recycling to reduce the need for additional disposal capacity.

Reissue and enforce Executive Order 156 [http://www.p2pays.org/ref/03/02221.pdf], which first passed in July 1999.
4
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Solid Waste Disposal
This past year, the amount of waste disposed in North Carolina increased as it has for the past decade. Both the total amount of waste disposed and the amount disposed on a per capita basis increased. Hurricanes continue to have a large impact on our waste disposal figures. The increase in disposal seen in coastal counties is due to both Hurricane Isabel in September 2003 and the ongoing demolition and construction in coastal communities. This may explain the large, 4 percent increase in the current per capita disposal rate from the previous year. The trend may continue in the next report cycle due to the 2004 damage in the mountain communities.
The state measures changes in waste disposal rates by comparing the current per capita waste disposal base year (FY 91-92) per capita rate. (Formula: Total Tons Disposed  Population = Per Capita Disposal Rate). Negative numbers indicate a decrease in the per capita disposal rate; positive numbers an increase. Waste reduction is a change from the base year, not a change from year to year. As seen in the following table, North Carolina continues to increase the absolute amount of waste disposed. The per capita increases have continued for eight consecutive years.
Fiscal Year
Tons
Disposed
Population
Per Capita
Disposal Rate
Change from
1991-1992
2003-2004
10,713,444
8,418,090
1.27
18 %
2002-2003
10,236,960
8,323,375
1.23
14 %
2001-2002
9,999,284
8,188,008
1.22
13 %
2000-2001
9,752,510
8,049,313
1.21
12 %
1999-2000
(adjusted*) 9,937,355
7,938,062
1.26
16 %
1999-2000
10,267,137
7,938,062
1.30
20 %
1998-1999
9,214,323
7,797,501
1.19
10 %
1997-1998
8,607,578
7,645,512
1.13
5 %
1996-1997
(adjusted*) 8,041,734
7,490,812
1.08
0 %
1996-1997
8,741,727
7,490,812
1.17
8 %
1995-1996
7,722,795
7,336,228
1.06
-2 %
1994-1995
7,624,144
7,180,525
1.07
-1 %
1993-1994
7,038,505
7,036,927
1.00
-7 %
1992-1993
6,890,818
6,892,673
1.00
-7 %
1991-1992
(managed**) 7,257,428
6,781,321
(Base Year Rate) 1.08
1991-1992
6,822,890
6,781,321
1.01
1990-1991
7,161,455
6,632,448
1.08
*The 1996-1997 and 1999-2000 fiscal years are adjusted by subtracting the tonnage estimated to be a result of Hurricanes Bertha, Fran (1996-1997), and Floyd (1999-2000).
**The tons managed figure was determined by adding the total amount of municipal solid waste disposed in landfills and
incinerators to the amount of waste managed through local governments' recycling, composting and mulching efforts in
FY 91-92. Recycling, composting and mulching were added to the tons disposed in recognition of the fact that some local
governments began waste reduction before 1991.
Statewide solid waste disposal reporting began in FY 90-91. The state made slight reductions in per capita waste rates in the early 1990s. Several factors caused these reductions. Tipping fees were established and the additional cost created an incentive to explore alternatives to municipal solid waste or construction and demolition landfills. Strong public and private interest helped local governments start recycling and waste reduction programs in response to state mandates and a perceived disposal crisis. During the early part of the decade, the state and country were in recession. Many waste professionals cite the depressed economy as the primary cause of the waste reduction.
In the mid 1990s, state waste disposal rates increased significantly. Even allowing for two natural disasters, the disposal increase is considerable. The rebounding economy was one cause, but when both the state and nation entered a recession, the expected waste reduction did not occur. The reporting period that ended on June 30, 2004 closed with a 476,484-ton increase over the previous period. As seen last year, the recession analysis model no longer appears useful when analyzing waste management changes.
5
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Tons of Solid Waste Disposed of by North Carolina02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,0001990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-04Fiscal YearTons
Past waste and per capita disposal trends help estimate the amount of waste attributed to Hurricane Fran in FY 96-97. Counties reported actual totals following Hurricane Floyd in FY 99-00, so the figure is more precise. During FY 03-04, another hurricane, Isabel, impacted our state and waste disposal, mainly in coastal communities. The exact amount of waste attributed to Hurricane Isabel is unknown; however, observing the monthly disposal figures for coastal counties indicates large increases following Hurricane Isabel.
No discernible pattern appeared from analysis of individual counties’ year-to-year trends. In FY 03-04, the 10 North Carolina counties that hold 39 percent of the state’s population produced nearly 46 percent of the waste. These large counties, mainly with populations over 175,000, dramatically impact North Carolina disposal totals. However, any county can significantly impact state disposal needs at any given time. For example, Davidson County showed a very large increase this past year, the result of a one-time cleanup at a manufacturing site.
Landfill Capacity Needs
North Carolina currently has 41 operational MSW landfills. The total remaining capacity of all North Carolina landfills measures approximately 230.5 million cubic yards with room for approximately 137 million tons of MSW waste. The estimate was obtained using the state’s average utilization factor of .60 tons of waste per cubic yard of air space. The estimate does not include waste exported to other states, an unknown variable subject to change.
If North Carolina’s rate of landfill use remains steady at last year’s rate of 633,000/tons per month, one might assume the state has 18.1 years of landfill capacity. However, the capacity figure is misleading. (Please see the next table.) Much of the state’s capacity is not widely available due to permit conditions, franchise arrangements and distance. This remaining capacity also assumes a current level of imported waste. Obviously, increases in the importing of waste into North Carolina could decrease capacity even further.
Limiting factors include the fact that the Camp Lejeune landfill is for Marine Corps base use only; the Alamance County landfill is permitted to accept only Alamance County waste; and the Upper Piedmont
6
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
landfill is permitted for a maximum 600 tons per day. Many landfills’ franchise agreements only allow them to accept waste from a particular distance around the landfill. Some landfills chose not to accept waste from other jurisdictions, although their permit and franchise allow it. Additionally, landfill owner/operators may elect not to construct or use all of the permitted space.
The primary limiting factor is accessibility. In North Carolina, the maximum distance that waste travels averages less than 100 miles one-way. Minor exceptions exist, but an examination of “waste sheds” or service areas that developed from 2001-2002 data support the average.
Clearly, the concept of statewide capacity does not translate into statewide access. Regions of the state have limited capacity. Both eliminating out-of-state capacity and continuing the acceptance of out-of-state waste into NC shrinks this capacity number further. At present, statewide capacity does not appear to be a problem. However, regions may experience disruptions and additional costs as facilities close, open, change jurisdictions or alter the average distance waste is transferred.
Total MSW Landfill Capacity Analysis for North Carolina
Volume Airspace Used (yd3)
95,805,976
Tons Disposed
57,083,570
2003-2004 Tons Disposed
7,606,671
Months of Operation
Utilization Factor (tons/yd3)
.60
Lifetime Ave. Tons Disposed Per Month
576,011.9
2003-2004 Ave. Tons Disposed Per Month
633,889.3
Permitted
Total
Original Available Airspace (yd3)
132,927,669
326,334,692
Remaining Airspace (yd3)
37,121,693
230,528,716
Remaining Capacity for Tonnage (tons)
22,118,022.8
137,354,710.4
Remaining Capacity in Months
34.8
217.2
Remaining Capacity in Years
2.9
18.1
Includes data from the forty-one active MSW landfills in the state
Calculations

Avg. Tons Disposed Per Month = Tons Disposed / Months of Operation

2003-2004 Avg. Tons Disposed Per Month = 2003-2004 Tons Disposed / 12 months

Utilization Factor = Tons Disposed / Volume of Airspace Used

Remaining Airspace = Original Available Airspace – Volume of Airspace Used

Remaining Capacity for Tonnage = Remaining Airspace x Utilization Factor

Remaining Capacity in Months = Remaining Capacity for Tonnage / 03-04Avg.Tons Disposed Per Mo.

Remaining Capacity in Years = Remaining Capacity in Months / 12 months
Note: See capacity analysis for state and each MSW landfill at end of this report.
Future Waste Disposal Needs
Regression analysis helps forecast future waste disposal. In other words, historical trends are used to predict future amounts. Factoring in absolute population growth, North Carolina will dispose of approximately 14 million tons in 10 years and close to 16 million tons in 15 years. This amount equals nearly a ton and a half of waste for every resident by 2012. The forecast does not include the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes, or imported waste. The obvious implication of this trend is that demand for landfill space will increase with time as populations grow, less waste is diverted and imports become a larger portion of waste disposed.
7
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
North Carolina Solid Waste Disposal Forecast01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,0009,000,00010,000,00011,000,00012,000,00013,000,0014,000,00015,000,00016,000,00017,000,0001990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-042010-112014-152019-2020Fiscal YearTons Disposed/PopulationTons DisposedPopulationLinear (Tons Disposed)Linear (Population)
State Waste Reduction Goal
The 1991 amendment to the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (Senate Bill 111), established a statewide goal to reduce the amount of waste landfilled 40 percent by 2001. Reduction is measured on a per capita basis. Since FY 91-92, waste disposal increased 18 percent - from 1.08 to 1.27 tons per person per year. The statewide goal is unmet and the state per capita rate continues to increase, although several counties achieved the state’s waste reduction goal.
Three fundamental, interrelated reasons that contributed to the failure are changes in the dynamics of waste disposal, a lack of commitment to waste diversion, and economics.
Waste management dynamics changed dramatically after the state-wide reduction goal was established. Alternative technologies, such as incineration and mixed waste composting, did not develop as anticipated. Despite a great deal of interest and significant investment in these technologies, they did not decrease landfill disposal as expected. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned legislation on flow control and prohibited local governments from directing waste to certain disposal facilities. Legally, waste is a commodity and allowed free movement.
The commitment to reduce waste has waned over the years. Local governments perceive the 40 percent goal as “just a goal” and not a mandate. Funding and resources for waste reduction activities never occurred at the levels required or anticipated for waste reduction success. In addition, anticipated landfill bans never materialized.
The economics of landfill disposal evolved since the 1989 adoption of the goal. As private landfill owners competed for tonnages, tipping fees remained low. Landfills did not become as expensive to operate as initially projected. Landfill customers readily adapted to slightly higher tip fees and did not pursue waste reduction as a way to control costs. The combination of strong state and national economies of the early 1990s, moderate disposal costs, and local communities establishing their own goals, reduced the motivation to divert materials from landfills.
8
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Public Participation Initiative
Efforts to gain local government approval to site or expand landfills can be difficult. Landfills are an essential component of any comprehensive program that safely and economically manages solid waste, but court challenges of recent decisions for new MSW landfills are common. For many years, North Carolina’s landfills were mostly county owned and operated. These facilities primarily served the county where they were located. Today, most of North Carolina's municipal solid waste goes to regional landfills located inside or outside of the state. Local governments, private waste management companies, or a combination of the two may own these regional landfills. Compared to local landfills, they serve much larger geographic areas.
Current rules for obtaining a landfill permit require local governments to certify to the state that they have jurisdiction over the proposed location and they have given approval for the facility. The local approval process includes a number of opportunities for public participation. The state permit review process, which follows local approval, considers the local government approval process. The state also conducts additional review procedures. These review considerations make up a significant portion of the legal challenges.
Public response to proposed landfills is intensely negative, especially from citizens who would neighbor proposed sites. The response is consistent and applies equally to regional facilities and “local” facilities that only serve the county where they are located. Local elected officials cite negative public response as their primary reason for denying approval for proposed landfills.
The Solid Waste Section developed a program to offer residents - especially those near a proposed facility by a potential landfill permit decision - more opportunities to participate in the permitting process. After the section receives a site suitability application or a request to modify an existing permit, a series of public meetings is held. The process has two steps. The first meeting is open to residents and businesses that neighbor the landfill. The goal is to reduce the large crowds that commonly attend public meetings so those neighbors can ask questions and engage in dialogue with permitting staff. The second, larger meeting targets the entire county. Where necessary, appropriate government or non-government agencies receive concerns expressed in the meetings.
Even with the absence of landfill applications, the public participation component in Rutherford and Camden county educated residents on the landfill siting and review process, and provided another avenue to promote an exchange of ideas among state and local officials and residents.
Imports & Exports Net Imports/Exports of Solid Waste in North Carolina0200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-04Tons ImportsExports
North Carolina continues to export more waste than import. Exported waste accounts for approximately ten percent, or a total of 1,048,111 tons of the total waste disposed in the past fiscal year. Compared to fiscal year 2002-2003 numbers, this 76,825-ton increase represents a sizeable increase in exported waste.
9
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
In FY 95-96, North Carolina exported waste to one South Carolina landfill. During FY 02-03, 11 out-of-state landfills received North Carolina waste. Sixty-two North Carolina counties currently export at least some waste to 13 out-of-state landfills and two transfer stations. Back and forth movement - where waste leaves the state only to re-enter for disposal - has continued for the third consecutive year. A transfer station in South Carolina received 96,001 tons of waste from Mecklenburg County, then sent the waste back to North Carolina for disposal. For this reason, the amount has not been included in the report’s import or export totals. Imports continue to increase since some North Carolina landfills are located near state borders. In FY 95-96, only one landfill, located in Forsyth County, received imported waste. Currently, nine North Carolina landfills receive imported waste. North Carolina transfer station reports and voluntary reports from out-of-state facilities provide the data used to track imports.
10
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 2
GOVERNMENT WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
Annual reports received from local governments provide data on source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting activities statewide as well as other aspects of solid waste management. Data from these reports develop a picture of waste reduction efforts in North Carolina and the relative effectiveness of these programs and trends in program implementation.
Source Reduction and Reuse Programs
The number of local governments with source reduction and/or reuse programs changed very little during FY 03-04. The slight decrease from 112 governments with program to 109 governments with programs is most likely due to fluctuations in program reporting. Most governments overlook source reduction and reuse programs as cost-effective components of a comprehensive waste reduction program. Local governments are encouraged to take advantage of grants that are available for swap shops and backyard composting programs as well as free junk mail reduction materials available from the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance.
Local Reduction/Reuse/Recovery Programs
Program Type
FY 97-98
FY 98-99
FY 99-00
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
FY 02-03
FY 03-04
Source Reduction Programs
Backyard Composting
81
53
59
64
67
69
68
Grass Cycling
43
41
36
35
29
38
38
Xeriscaping
13
12
11
8
8
11
14
Junk Mail Reduction
55
57
64
64
61
65
63
Enviroshopping
35
35
32
31
27
32
31
Promotion of Non-toxics
35
30
31
33
27
27
28
Other
1
5
6
3
4
2
1
Reuse Programs
Swap Shops
17
22
23
28
34
33
31
Paint Exchange
25
27
23
19
19
19
18
Waste Exchange
14
8
8
4
3
4
6
Pallet Exchange
N/A
7
7
9
6
5
9
Other
6
15
10
8
9
11
7
Local Governments
with Programs
116
123
110
117
109
112
109
Local Government Recovery Programs
Total local government recovery decreased by almost 97,000 tons in FY 03-04. The primary reason for the decrease was a decline in organic materials recovered, predominantly yard waste. Although the influence of Hurricane Isabel can be seen in the slightly elevated organics total, the hurricane did not have the same level of impact as ice storms that occurred during FY 02-03. The recovery of organics is by far the most volatile tracked category. Hurricanes, ice storms and droughts can create significant swings in organics recovery from year to year. In order to track actual trends in recovery, it is important to evaluate changes with the organics category excluded.
During FY 03-04 non-organics recovery increased by 3,337 tons or 0.7 percent. During the same period, the state’s population grew by 1.1 percent, indicating a weak growth in recycling. The weak growth is partially attributed to a continued decline in curbside recycling programs. Twenty-one communities discontinued curbside recycling programs during FY 03-04, while the only notable addition of a curbside
11
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
program was the city of Brevard, which reinstated a discontinued program. The 21 discontinued programs accounted for more than 2,100 tons of recovery during FY 02-03.
Another significant change during FY 03-04 was a decline in paper recovery. For the first time in seven years, the amount of paper recovered by local governments declined despite increases in all other categories (organics excluded). Part of this decline is due to a recalculation of the ratio used to breakout materials reported as commingled. The ratio is recalculated every couple years to accurately reflect current recovery trends, however, even using last year’s ratio, total paper would have still experienced a noticeable decline.
Several factors may have resulted in the decrease in total paper recovery. The net decrease in recycling programs definitely had an effect, but other factors such as economic conditions, improved use of electronic media, reporting irregularities and a continuing increase in tonnage reported as commingled may also have played a role in the decrease. The amount of material reported as commingled over the past five years has increased by more than 92,000 tons, increasing the difficulty in determining the exact quantities of each commodity recovered.
Local Government Recovery (Tons) and Performance Measures
Material
FY 94-95
FY 95-96
FY 96-97
FY 97-98
FY 98-99
Total Paper
185,270
212,577
228,025
216,121
233,339
Total Glass
38,088
49,601
44,978
43,449
41,623
Total Plastics
12,339
16,253
13,699
14,399
14,835
Total Metal*
59,483
65,977
77,252
81,262
77,564
Total Organics**
495,034
498,583
640,410
504,554
525,033
Special Wastes***
2,466
3,212
3,230
3,527
3,817
Construction and Demolition Debris
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other
5,987
333
12,762
35,977
63,794
Totals
798,667
846,536
1,020,356
899,290
960,005
Per Capita Recovery (lbs.)
226.19
235.59
279.19
242.03
254.40
Recovery Ratio (Recycling:Disposal)
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.10
Material
FY 99-00
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
FY 02-03
FY 03-04
Total Paper
241,859
263,365
267,840
275,538
267,371
Total Glass
41,826
46,936
49,891
51,433
52,117
Total Plastics
14,474
15,062
17,269
16,807
18,679
Total Metal*
86,480
92,634
114,786
109,723
114,097
Total Organics**
638,757
540,582
468,901
689,027
589,124
Special Wastes***
4,907
4,947
5,426
5,926
6,271
Construction and Demolition Debris
59,598
15,406
17,648
20,002
24,084
Other
5,329
6,120
5,896
4,626
4,773
Totals
1,093,032
985,052
947,657
1,173,082
1,076,516
Per Capita Recovery (lbs.)
285.61
243.66
231.47
281.88
255.76
Recovery Ratio (Recycling:Disposal)
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
* Includes white goods, aluminum cans, steel cans and other metals.
** Includes yard waste, pallets and wood waste.
*** Includes electronics, used oil, oil filters, antifreeze and batteries. 12
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
The ratio of recycling to disposal decreased slightly to 0.10 in FY 03-04. The decreasing slope in the figure below indicates that disposal grew more than recycling during the year. The ratio has remained relatively constant over the past 10 years, with spikes occurring in years that weather events increased the amount of yard waste managed.
Ratio of Recycling to Disposal – FY 90-91 to FY 03-04 -0.020.040.060.080.100.121990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001Fiscal YearRecycling:Disposal Ratio
At the request of several counties, analysis of the top 10 waste producing counties includes diversion that occurred through mulching and composting activities. Some local governments made significant investments in mulching and composting facilities and annually incur the cost of collection and facility operation. Yard waste is banned from disposal in MSW and C&D landfills. The most common management options for yard waste are mulching, composting grinding for boiler fuel and disposal in land clearing and inert debris landfills (LCIDs).
North Carolina’s top 10 waste producing counties continue to represent almost half of all waste disposed in the state. When mulching and composting is included, these counties represent roughly 47.5 percent of all local government diversion in the state. When just recycling (including special waste) is included, the top ten counties account for almost 49 percent of local government recycling activities.
Disposal vs. Recycling in Ten Largest Waste Producing Counties FY 03-04
County
Disposal
Recycling
Mulching & Composting
Contribution to Disposal
Contribution to Diversion
Mecklenburg
1,266,434
56,355
72,172
11.84 %
11.94 %
Wake
920,251
43,818
47,969
8.60 %
8.53 %
Guilford
659,224
41,606
14,185
6.16 %
5.18 %
Forsyth
550,614
19,466
43,961
5.15 %
5.89 %
Cumberland
358,348
3,987
31,566
3.35 %
3.30 %
Buncombe
319,594
33,775
3,846
2.99 %
3.49 %
Durham
294,289
17,604
18,009
2.75 %
3.31 %
New Hanover*
264,387
10,283
11,685
2.47 %
2.04 %
Cabarrus
254,210
5,854
18,623
2.38 %
2.27 %
Gaston
226,625
5,149
12,245
2.12 %
1.62 %
Total
5,113,976
237,897
274,261
47.80 %
47.58 %
* New Hanover County local governments utilize private companies for mulching and composting. Due to the structure of the annual reporting process, tonnages handled by private mulching and composting companies are generally excluded. There is an attempt to include these tonnages in the table above.
13
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Recovery of Traditional Materials
Container recovery grew by 2.64 percent during FY 03-04 to an all time high of 84,383 tons. This represents four straight years of strong growth in the recovery of glass, plastic and metal containers. Plastic container recovery grew the most during the year, potentially highlighting the ever increasing market share for plastic drink and food containers. Brown glass recovery also grew substantially during FY 03-04, however, green glass recovery declined by almost 16 percent. The large decrease in green glass recovery may be the result of fewer communities collecting green glass, a decreasing market share for green glass or the co-marketing of brown and green glass as brown glass. It is likely some combination of all three.
Total Recovery in Tons FY 95-96 to FY 03-04 35,00045,00055,00065,00075,00085,000FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99FY 99-00FY 00-01FY 01-02FY 02-03FY 03-04Fiscal Year
Local Government Recycling Program Management
The number of local government curbside programs fell again during FY 03-04. The drop to 212 municipal curbside programs represents five straight years of declines. Although most of the programs dropped have been from small towns, some larger towns have recently discontinued curbside programs. During FY 03-04 the town of Smithfield was the largest community to eliminate curbside recycling; however, the city still maintains a drop-off recycling program. Since 1999, approximately 55,000 households have lost access to curbside recycling due to program cuts. This equates to more than 6,000 non-recovered tons of material. Despite the loss of curbside recycling for 55,000 households over the past five years, the number of households served has actually grown from 960,000 to 1.3 million households. This is mainly due to annexations and growth in the cities and towns with programs. Municipal Curbside Programs050100150200250300FY 98-99FY 99-00FY 00-01FY 01-02FY 02-03FY 03-04
14
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Drop-off programs continue to contribute more to recycling than any other type of program. Roughly 45 percent of all material recovered by local governments comes from drop-off recycling programs. The ability of these programs to handle special wastes, white goods and scrap metal is the primary reason why they contribute more than curbside programs. During FY 03-04, contributions from mixed waste processing dropped to less than 0.5 percent. Recovery from mixed waste processing will likely remain extremely low in the future.
Recovery by Program Type
Program Type
Percent of Total Recovery
Curbside
39 %
Drop-off
45 %
Mixed Waste Processing
< 1 %
Other Programs
16 %
Special Waste Management
The collected amount of special wastes, including motor oil, oil filters, lead acid batteries, and household hazardous waste (HHW), continued to grow slowly in FY 03-04. The number of new programs, however, is not increasing; leaving many citizens in North Carolina unserved or underserved in the collection of these materials. As in FY 02-03, citizens in over 70 percent of the counties in North Carolina have no alternative to disposal for their household hazardous wastes, and some have no access to publicly operated oil collection sites. Most jurisdictions do not offer oil filter and anti-freeze collection. As a result, it is likely that much of this material is still being disposed or at least stockpiled.
The N. C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ pesticide container recycling program remains a relatively popular way for local governments to offer diversion opportunities for at least that portion of HHW – 69 communities offered these services in FY 03-04. In addition, with the cost of HHW programs so high, 22 jurisdictions offer alternative low cost, paint-only collection programs to the public.
Local Government Special Waste Management FY 99-00 – FY 03-04
FY 99-00
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
FY 02-03
FY 03-04
Used Motor Oil
No. of programs
126
125
127
125
124
Gallons collected
873,548
839,234
903,951*
907,123
939,916
Oil Filters
No. of programs
14
18
20
21
19
Tons collected
10.34
16.15
17.79
18.64
24.07
Antifreeze
No. of programs
49
54
56
58
63
Gallons collected
15,977
33,304
27,668
26,308
26,767
Lead Acid Batteries
No. of programs
90
90
86
86
90
No. collected
74,737
82,043
80,912
92,292
100,217
HHW
No. of programs
24
24
28
31
32
No. of permanent sites
13
12
17
17
17
HHW tons collected
931.82
1315.3
1483.97
1540.59
1760.17
Total cost reported
$1,644,818
($1,765/ton)
$1,792,125
($1363/ton)
$2,180,355
($1,469/ton)
$2,161,359
($1,403/ton)
$2,430,012
($1,381/ton)
Conversions: Oil, 1 gal = 7.4 lbs; Antifreeze, 1 gal = 8.42 lbs; Lead Acid Battery, 1 battery = 35.9 lbs
Yard Waste Management
Fiscal Year 03-04 saw an expected drop in yard waste tonnages from the previous year, in which ice storms inflated vegetative debris totals. Still, there was some effect of hurricane damage in northeastern North Carolina, and overall yard waste tonnages exceeded the “normal” half million ton mark. About 10 percent of diverted tonnage went from local government collection services directly to the public (e.g.,
15
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
leaves delivered to farmers and gardeners). Public mulch and compost programs handled the bulk of diverted yard waste. About 15 percent each of yard waste totals were delivered to private facilities or LCID landfills. But the consistent diversion of grass, leaves, limbs, brush, and stumps shows that after 10 years, the state yard waste disposal ban is working well and achieving substantial annual waste reduction.
Local Government Yard Waste Management FY 02-03 and FY 03-04
Destination of Materials
FY 02-03 tons managed
FY 03-04 tons managed
Percentage Change
End Users (direct delivery)
64,164
58,954
- 8 %
Local mulch/compost facility
582,677
509,553
- 11 %
TOTAL DISPOSAL DIVERSION*
646,841
568,507
- 12 %
Other Public Facility**
125,990
83,800
- 33 %
Private Facility
152,567
120,543
- 21 %
LCID Landfill
133,505
137,369
3 %
YARD WASTE TOTALS
932,913
826,419
- 11 %
* Tonnages under the row for “Total Disposal Diversion” are not included in diversion because of data redundancy, uncertainty about actual disposition of the waste, and actual disposal of noted tonnages.
** Yard Waste Totals exclude tons for “other public facilities” - it is assumed these tons were captured under other categories.
Yard Waste Diverted From Disposal by Local Governments, FY 95-96 – FY 03-04 Tons of Yard Waste Diverted by Local Governments0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000FY95-96FY96-97FY97-98FY98-99FY99-00FY00-01FY01-02FY02-03FY03-04Hurricane FranHurricane Floyd2003 Ice Storms
Recycling Markets, Prices, and Related Developments
From FY 02-03 through FY 03-04, recycling markets were remarkably strong across the board. Demand for all of the most commonly collected materials has been robust, and prices have been above average and stable, rising through the course of FY 03-04 for many of the commodities. End users of recovered glass, plastics, metals, and fiber have consistently indicated a need for more supply – in the case of U.S. plastics reclaimers, the lack of supply has almost reached a crisis point, especially as demand from China has increasingly pulled recycled resins away from domestic users.
The industrial growth of China has fueled a steadily rising appetite for raw materials, which it satisfies more and more with recycled commodities. China is now by far the leading importer of U.S. generated wastepaper. In the meantime, domestic users of recyclable commodities have also maintained their appetite for secondary resources, showing interest in getting more supply. The primary glass processor in North Carolina has indicated that the state’s glass mills are asking for more “cullet” (recycled glass), which replaces virgin materials and helps lower energy usage at their plants. A study by N. C. State University completed in 2004, showed that the pallet repair and recycling industry is also capable of processing much more material. A manufacturer who started making wood flooring from pallets in 2004 had trouble getting enough feedstock to feed his operation. Users of wood waste for fuel and composting
16
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
paid higher prices that normal in FY 03-04 and in some cases ran short of material as supply failed to meet demand.
The table below shows trend of prices received by major recycling processors in FY 03-04 for some of the most common commodities. The table shows the consistency of prices, and in some cases the rise in prices over the year. Steel cans in particular experienced a dramatic increase, reflecting strong worldwide demand for finished steel that drove metal scrap prices higher. Plastics also remained at above-average price rates providing evidence of the supply “crisis” for this material.
Composite Recycling Market Prices Received by Major NC Processors, FY 03-04
Materials
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Spring 2004
Summer 2004
Aluminum cans, lbs., loose
$ .46
$ .49
$ .54
$ .56
Steel cans, gross tons, baled
$ 48.00
$ 65.00
$116.00
$105.00
PETE, lbs. Baled
$ .10
$ .13
$ .14
$ .13
HDPE, lbs., baled
$ .14
$ .17
$ .16
$ .15
Newsprint, ton, baled
$ 62.00
$ 65.00
$ 89.00
$ 82.00
Corrugated, ton, baled
$ 69.00
$ 69.00
$ 96.00
$ 99.00
Office paper, ton, baled
$125.00
$133.00
$120.00
$143.00
Mixed paper, ton, baled
$ 30.00
$ 39.00
$ 50.00
$ 54.00
Clear glass, ton
$ 22.00
$ 24.00
$ 24.00
$ 24.00
Brown glass, ton
$ 21.00
$ 19.00
$ 19.00
$ 19.00
Green glass, ton
$ - 4.00
$ - 5.00
$0
$0
The figure below shows the price trends for two bellwether recyclables over the past seven years – newspaper and cardboard. Since 1999, newspaper has stayed over $40/ton, bringing stability to revenues for this material. Cardboard has been a little more volatile, but has also demonstrated strong market prices since a market low in March 1999. For both grades, the trend toward higher prices can be seen for the past two fiscal years, achieving $60/ton or better throughout that period.
Prices Paid for Newspaper and Corrugated Cardboard – July 1997 through June 2004 $0$20$40$60$80$100$120Jul-97Oct-97Jan-98Apr-98Jul-98Oct-98Jan-99Apr-99Jul-99Oct-99Jan-00Apr-00Jul-00Oct-00Jan-01Apr-01Jul-01Oct-01Jan-02Apr-02Jul-02Oct-02Jan-03Apr-03Jul-03Oct-03Jan-04Apr-04NewspaperCardboardPrice per ton, baled
Ten Year Solid Waste Management Plans
North Carolina General Statute 130A, otherwise known as The Solid Waste Management Act of 1989, regulates the management of solid waste in North Carolina and requires local governments to become proactive, rather than reactive, solid waste planners.
The legislation prescribed a minimum content for local government 10-year comprehensive solid waste management plans, commonly referred to as plans. The plans offer an opportunity to examine, from a holistic standpoint, the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the solid waste management system locally and when analyzed, across the state. A solid waste plan provides an environmentally sound and economically efficient way for local governments to manage non-hazardous waste. 17
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Staff from the Divisions of Waste Management and Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance provides resources and technical assistance for plan development. All 100 North Carolina counties design plans, either individually or regionally, in-house or through an outside entity. Public participation is required to incorporate input from a variety of public and private sources.
Not mandated to embrace the state waste reduction goal of 40 percent, counties make a "good faith" effort to define their own goal. Counties have the option to revise previous goals but must establish new goals to provide 10 years of planning. The primary objective of the planning process is to identify solid waste management needs and address them through programs, financing, political and community support. Strategies to achieve the objective include benchmarking, defining measurable goals and revising plans if circumstances or variables significantly change.
Plan Comparison
A sampling of counties correlates plans developed in 2000 with those of 2003. An analysis of 25 counties from last year’s annual report ranked the counties by amount of waste disposed. The selection includes 10 counties disposing of the most waste, plus every sixth county. This sampling method encompasses a variety of circumstances that influence a county's ability to plan, implement and fund comprehensive solid waste management programs.
The primary finding, continuing the trend seen in the previous plan analysis, shows a decline in the FY 05-06 waste reduction goals originally developed in 1997. Fifteen of the 100 county FY 05-06 goals decreased in the 2000 revisions. The 1997 Reduction goal averages of 22.96 percent decreased to 13 percent in the 2000 plans and 10.33 percent in the 2003 plans. At the county level, waste generation appears to be associated with consumer spending and production levels. As local economies and populations expand, county infrastructure needs increase. Strained budgets attempt to maintain or enhance capital improvements and provide service levels at a comparable growth rate. With goals not mandated, local infrastructure needs continue to be a budget priority - at the expense of solid waste initiatives.
Of the 25 counties surveyed, Edgecombe, Greene, Jones and Surry achieved their FY 05-06 waste reduction goal. Review of 2000 and 2003 plans did not indicate aggressive waste reduction programs in three of the four counties. However, Jones County has a variable rate disposal system which studies show produces the desired effect of reducing disposal amounts. It appears the achievement of the 2005 goal from the other three counties may be a combination of population loss or low growth and moderate unemployment rates. Edgecombe experienced a 1.2 percent decrease in population; Surry a 1.14 percent increase and Greene a 2.52 percent increase between 2000 and 2002. October 2003 unemployment rates for the counties range from 4.3 to 9.6 percent.1 This corresponds to the state growth rate of 2.8 percent and 6.1 percent unemployment rate over the same p
Some communities in North Carolina have adopted strong waste reduction policies and are implementing programs to achieve their reduction goals. Among these counties are Chatham, Orange, Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority (Carteret, Craven and Pamlico counties), Davidson, Pitt and Stokes. Two initiatives assist these counties in goal achievement, (1) programs targeting specific waste generation sectors and (2) multi-faceted education outreach.
Plans for these counties target specific waste generation sectors with programs designed to capture recyclable office and school paper, corrugated cardboard, multi-family housing recyclables or non-traditional recyclables. Several plans describe aggressive in-house buy-recycled programs and accompanying paper recycling programs. The second common component is a comprehensive education program. Education initiatives targeting the general population, tourists, schools and businesses appear to have an effect in slowing or reversing both waste generated and disposed. Continuous, multi-faceted approaches to education initiatives reinforce waste reduction objectives.
1 http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/countyprofiles/
18
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
The above counties decreased tons disposed despite increases in population, building activity or tourism. The progress in reducing waste ranged from 9 to 45 percent.
In the following table, seven counties decreased and six increased their FY 05-06 reduction goal. Non-attainment of original goals may prompt the dramatic (22.96 to 13.00 percent) goal decreases between 1997 and 2000. The 2003 plans show less decline (10.33 percent). While the goals show an overall decrease, anticipated tons increased primarily due to Wake County’s goal increase from 1 to 10 percent.
Comparison of 25 County Goals and Accompanied Waste Reduction
COUNTY
4/00
7/05 est.
Population
Change
FY 05/06
GOAL
FY 05/06
GOAL
Anticipated
Tons Reduced **
Anticipated
Tons Reduced **
Population *
Population *
2000 Plan
2003 Plan
2000 Plan
2003 Plan
BUNCOMBE
206,310
218,677
12,367
0.40
0.30
6,085
4,563
CABARRUS
131,063
150,447
19,384
0.05
0.05
1,192
1,192
CHATHAM
49,329
55,689
6,360
0.35
0.35
2,738
2,738
CLEVELAND
96,290
99,523
3,233
CRAVEN
91,523
94,067
2,544
0.40
0.22
1,252
688
CUMBERLAND
302,963
315,122
12,159
0.05
0.10
748
1,496
DURHAM
223,314
243,322
20,008
0.05
0.05
1,230
1,230
EDGECOMBE
55,606
53,596
-2,010
0.05
0.05
17
FORSYTH
306,067
325,957
19,890
-0.05
-0.05
GASTON
190,301
194,077
3,776
0.03
0.01
139
46
GREENE
18,974
20,664
1,690
0.03
0.03
62
62
GUILFORD
421,048
446,189
25,141
0.11
0.15
3,402
4,639
HOKE
33,646
39,446
5,800
0.05
0.10
357
713
JONES
10,403
10,347
-56
0.10
0.10
MECKLENBURG
695,370
789,940
94,570
0.16
0.14
18,611
16,285
NEW HANOVER
160,327
176,575
16,248
0.05
999
NORTHAMPTON
22,086
21,903
-183
0.10
0.10
PERQUIMANS
11,368
11,890
522
0.12
0.02
77
13
PERSON
35,623
38,118
2,495
0.05
0.03
153
92
POLK
18,324
19,562
1,238
0.32
-0.05
487
ROBESON
123,245
128,970
5,725
0.30
0.30
2,113
2,113
ROCKINGHAM
91,928
93,370
1,442
0.15
0.17
266
302
SURRY
71,219
73,717
2,498
0.10
0.10
307
307
WAKE
627,866
744,024
116,158
0.01
0.10
1,429
14,287
WATAUGA
42,693
43,497
804
0.06
0.06
59
59
SUM
4,036,886
4,408,689
371,803
40,708
51,843
AVERAGE (blank cells = Goal of zero)
13.00%
10.33%
2,143
2,592
* Office of State Planning 10/19/04 NOTE: Tons/person/yr. based on FY 02-03 Annual Reports
**Formula = Positive population change multiplied by 1.23 tons/person/year less positive Goal percentage
Finite local resources limit programs and services. This could result in more counties shifting recycling and waste reduction responsibility from the public to the private sector.
Error! Not a valid link.
Key Findings

Measurable and steady progress toward waste reduction initiatives do not appear evident. Progress is questionable with cursory long-term planning and numerous Plans reactive rather than progressive.

Data limitations and lack of standardized full cost accounting procedures preclude accurate program cost comparisons.

Current funding levels do not result in increased waste reduction initiatives and effective diversion numbers.
Local governments provide annual reports on source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting activities statewide. They also provide data on other aspects of solid waste management. The data determines the scope and effectiveness of North Carolina’s waste reduction efforts. It also helps planner’s spot trends in program implementation.
19
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Solid Waste Management Trust Fund
This chapter details for FY 03-04 the activities and expenditures of the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund. The Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources administers the trust fund, created by the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (SB 111). It is funded by a portion of the revenues from a fee on the sale of new tires, a tax on virgin newsprint, and an advanced disposal fee on white goods (appliances). Additional revenues can come from appropriations and contributions. The purpose of the trust fund is to support a range of solid waste management activities including: technical assistance to local governments, businesses, and other entities on solid waste issues; public educational programs; research and demonstration projects; and recycling market development (G.S. 130A- 309.12).
As noted in the table below, the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund received $951,377 in revenues in FY 03-04. When added to the beginning balance on July 1, 2003 of $2,131,232, a total of $3,082,609 was managed in the trust fund for FY 03-04. Actual expenditures were $892,708, leaving a fund balance at the end of FY 03-04 of $2,189,901. However, a total of $1,207,927 of that balance was encumbered for standing grant contracts already awarded and for which funding had not been fully disbursed (grant contracts are paid on a reimbursement basis). The unencumbered balance at the end of FY 03-04 was $981,974. An additional set of grant contracts were being encumbered at the end of the fiscal year, which further reduced the available balance.
Trust Fund Expenditures Revenue Sources
Total FY 03-04
Total FY 03-04
Beginning Balance
$ 2,131,232
Tire Tax
$ 569,845
+ Revenue
$ 951,377
White Goods ADF
$ 332,888
- Expenditures
$ 892,708
Newsprint Tax
$ 49
Ending Balance
$ 2,189,901
Appropriations
$ 0
Encumbrances
$ 1,207,927
Contributions and Misc.
$ 48,595
Unencumbered funds on 6/30/04
$ 981,974
Total Revenues
$ 951,377
Trust Fund Revenue Sources
Trust fund revenues in FY 03-04, as indicated in the table above, came from four of five possible revenue sources identified in the General Statutes. Activity from each source is described below:

2% Tire tax – Trust fund revenues from the tax on the sale of new tires accounted for $569,845, an increase of almost 5% from FY 02-03. Tire revenue accounted for close to 60 percent of total trust fund revenues for FY 03-04.

White Goods Tax – Proceeds from the advanced disposal fee (ADF) on white goods accounted for $332,888 or just over 35 percent of total revenues for FY 03-04. White goods proceeds were down 6.6 percent from FY 02-03.

Virgin Newsprint Tax – North Carolina newspaper publishers that fail to meet state-required purchasing goals for recycled content newsprint must pay a $15 per ton tax on the virgin newsprint they consume. The law allows wide exemptions for companies who are unable to purchase recycled content newsprint due to availability or pricing constraints, or who are actively involved in the recovery of newspaper for recycling. During FY 03-04, $49 was received from the virgin newsprint tax. Compliance with the law has been consistent - in 10 years, the annual revenue from the newsprint tax has never been higher than $3,000.

General Appropriations - When the Trust Fund was established in 1989, a one-time appropriation of $300,000 provided an initial fund balance. Since that time, there have been no further appropriations.

Contributions to the Trust Fund and Miscellaneous Revenues – DPPEA continued a recycling promotion campaign in FY 03-04 that entailed a cost-sharing partnership with local governments and private sector contributors. Local governments contributed $25,995 toward the campaign. Federal
20
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
funds accounted for $12,000 in contributions and other state agencies provided $10,600 in resources for the program. The list of Recycle Guys partners is provided in Attachment A to this report.
Trust Fund Expenditures
FY 03-04 was an active year for grant-making and waste reduction outreach. Trust fund resources were also used to continue delivery of technical assistance to North Carolina communities, recycling businesses, and waste generators. These activities are three of the explicit purposes noted in G.S. 130A-309.12, and are described in detail below.

Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grants
The Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grants (CWRARGs) are a standard annual grant cycle that DPPEA offers to local government and non-profit recycling programs. The cycle provides support for specific projects that enhance the effectiveness of local and non-profit recycling efforts. The CWRARGs usually include targeted grant categories designed to increase activity in certain program areas or to increase the recovery of certain commodities.
Because of an available large balance in the trust fund, DPPEA held two separate CWRARG grant cycles in FY 03-04, one in the fall of 2003 and the other in the spring of 2004. Both were initiated with a Request For Proposals circulated to local governments and non-profit agencies involved in waste reduction. Funding categories included backyard composting, buy recycled activities, and general recycling activities.
In the first round, 23 proposals were received and evaluated for funding using a “blind vote” scoring process with specific point criteria. Twenty-two proposals were selected for funding totaling $355,595 in grant awards. In the second round, 19 proposals were received and 16 projects funded for a total of $258,792 (one of these projects was combined with one funded in the Recycling Business Assistance Grants, described below). Details on the grantees and projects are provided in Attachment B.
In addition to the CWRARG cycles, DPPEA conducts a related, ongoing request for proposals to develop “Swap Shops,” which are community reuse centers open to the public. This open grant round resulted in one award in FY 03-04 to the city of Raleigh.

Business Recycling Grants
Similarly to the community-related grants, DPPEA conducted two grant cycles in FY 03-04 targeted at improving markets through the expansion of recycling businesses statewide. The strength and capacity of the private recycling infrastructure is vital to diverting materials from disposal. Many recycling businesses need a small boost in financial assistance to increase their ability to handle more and different kinds of recyclable materials. The FY 03-04 Business Recycling Grants were designed to help companies move to a higher level of material-handling capacity, which in turn offers new market opportunities to local government recycling programs and waste generators.
The first Business Recycling Grant cycle in the fall of 2003 attracted 34 proposals. Eighteen proposals were awarded a total of $450,000 in funding. Two awards were later turned down by the grantees when their project plans changed, leaving 16 total awards. In the spring grant round, a smaller amount of funding was offered, and a fewer number of proposals were received. Of the nine projects submitted, four were selected for funding for a total of $87,500. Details on the grantees and their projects are described in Attachment C.

Recycling Guys Campaign
One of the greatest waste management challenges in North Carolina is increasing household participation in local government recycling programs. Low participation harms the efficiency of local recycling programs and fails to supply materials needed by recycling businesses.
21
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
To raise participation rates, DPPEA continued the successful “Recycle Guys” educational campaign in FY 03-04, completing an ongoing broadcast cycle for the advertisements that prove very popular with children. A special effort was made to reach the Latino community through a short-term broadcast campaign on a Spanish-speaking television channel in the Triangle area. In addition, DPPEA started targeting a slightly older demographic with new ads more appealing to teen and young adult audiences.
DPPEA also initiated a number of other efforts to educate and promote recycling in new ways:

DPPEA used cinema ads in key communities around the state to increase public awareness of different aspects of recycling – for example, the number of jobs created by recycling in North Carolina and the products that recyclable materials are turned into.

DPPEA also created and distributed four new posters that feature the Recycle Guys characters promoting recycling, source reduction, composting, and buying recycled products.

To further assist and integrate the Recycle Guys characters into local programs, DPPEA produced and sent out labels for use on drop-off containers across the state.

New promotional materials – stickers, tattoos, and pencils were produced and given to local recycling coordinators to help promote local programs.

DPPEA targeted recycling participation in heavy tourist areas along the coast by distributing refrigerator magnets with recycling information to hotels and rental units.
These efforts are designed to spread the recycling outreach program into new areas and new media, and provide local programs with needed materials and assistance. DPPEA held a series of workshops in the summer of 2004 to train local recycling coordinators how to use the Recycle Guys materials effectively, and to preview a new promotional campaign being developed for next fiscal year.
Technical Assistance Activities
The general statutes direct DPPEA use the trust fund to promote waste reduction and recycling generally, and specifically provide technical assistance to local governments and build recycling markets. The following section lists activities that DPPEA pursued in FY 03-04 to accomplish these requirements:

Waste Reduction Partners Program
The Waste Reduction Partners (WRP) is a highly successful program using retired engineers and business professionals to provide environmental technical assistance to companies and local governments in western North Carolina. In a continuation of funding from the three previous years, DPPEA provided $25,000 to WRP in FY 03-04 in support of industrial solid waste audits and other recycling activities. With this funding, WRP helped western North Carolina businesses and other entities divert 14,800 tons of solid waste from landfills. The estimated pollution prevention savings for businesses served by Waste Reduction Partners in FY 03-04 totaled $1.11 million. During the fiscal year, WRP conducted solid waste reduction work in 19 different western counties.

Staff Support
To accomplish the technical assistance, public education, and recycling market development requirements in the general statutes, the trust fund was used in FY 03-04 to support staff positions in the DPPEA. A total of $338,931 was expended to pay for salaries, benefits and some limited operational support. These positions are described below:
Recycling Market Development Specialist - This position provides marketing assistance to local governments and others involved in recyclable materials collection. As a part of the Recycling Business Assistance Center in DPPEA, this person is responsible for strengthening recycling capacity for secondary materials collected throughout the state. Among other duties, it manages the recycling markets directory required by state statute.
Recycling Market Development Specialist - This position is housed part-time with the N. C. Department of Commerce and is responsible for working with local and state economic developers to recruit recycling businesses to North Carolina. This position successfully facilitated the location of two new recyclers in the state in FY 2004, and provided technical assistance to numerous existing companies.
Recycling Market Development Specialist - This position focuses on building the recycling infrastructure for the diversion of construction and demolition debris and wood waste, which together constitute one third of the state’s waste stream. In addition to managing grants and conducting other
22
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
technical assistance, this position produces the Recycling Works newsletter, which keeps recycling companies and community recycling programs abreast of market developments, material prices, and news about grants and available assistance.
Waste Management Analyst - In addition to working with local recycling coordinators, this position is responsible for developing educational materials and programs on solid waste issues for audiences ranging from school children to adult populations. In particular, this position implements the multi-media statewide “Recycle Guys” campaign designed to boost recycling participation rates in North Carolina.
Waste Management Analyst - This position is responsible for providing technical assistance to local governments on their waste reduction programs, including solid waste planning and full cost accounting (statutory requirements for local governments). The position also manages recycling program data from state-mandated local waste reduction reports, which in turn allows completion of this report.
Waste Management Analyst (DPPEA) – This position manages the WasteTrader waste exchange service, provides direct assistance to commercial and industrial waste generators, helps manage grants and the local reporting process, and is responsible for many training and outreach activities to local recycling programs.
Organics Recycling Specialist (DPPEA) - This position provides technical assistance to local governments, recycling businesses, waste generators, and the general public on the reduction and composting of organic waste streams, including yard wastes, which are banned from disposal by statute.

Graduate Intern Program
Through a contract with the Water Resources Research Institute (WRRI) in the University of North Carolina, DPPEA hires student interns for a full year. Student projects in FY 03-04 included: 1) continuation and expansion of the Recycle Guys campaign, 2) development of best management case studies on local recycling programs, 3) promotion of the use of re-refined oil and other recycled products by state and local agencies, and 4) assistance with the development of recycling markets and improvement of local programs.
Product Stewardship Initiatives
“Product Stewardship” is a growing movement by state and local governments to increase manufacturer responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products, including the diversion of those products from disposal to recycling. Greater manufacturer responsibility for end-of-life products will reduce cost and tax burdens on state and local governments. In FY 03-04, North Carolina participated in product stewardship initiatives by supporting the activities of the national Product Stewardship Institute and by helping lead a multi-state effort to encourage producer responsibility for beverage containers.
Lightweight Aggregate Project
The disposal of coal ash and other industrial by-products is becoming a more difficult issue, and one that contributes to the increase in waste disposal in North Carolina. To help address this problem, DPPEA supported in FY 03-04 the work of the N. C. State University Minerals Research Laboratory to develop a value-added lightweight aggregate product from coal ash, organic bio-solids, and other materials. This project is conducted in partnership with private industry and is focused on demonstrating the effectiveness of a production-level facility for the lightweight aggregate product.
Publications and Outreach Efforts
DPPEA used trust fund resources in FY 03-04 for a number of technical assistance and outreach activities, including: printing and distributing the Recycling Works newsletter and other fact sheets; conducting workshops and sessions at conferences of the Carolina Recycling Association and N. C. chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America; and travel to provide technical assistance to local governments and trust fund grantees. Normally, DPPEA would use appropriated funds for these purposes but were unable to given the state budget shortfalls.
23
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Temporary Assistance
North Carolina statutes require solid waste management annual reports from all counties and municipalities, which in turn provides data for the State Annual Solid Waste Management Report. In addition, N. C. statutes require the keeping of a directory of recycling markets. DPPEA used temporary labor in FY 03-04 to manage the large set of data required for both of these tasks, and to increase the amount of technical assistance resources available to local governments.
Planned Expenditures For FY 04-05
In FY 04-05, the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund will be used to provide technical assistance to local government recycling programs and to recycling businesses statewide. As part of that effort, DPPEA will conduct both a community-based and recycling business grant cycle, helping directly expand collection and processing capacity for recyclable materials. A series of workshops is planned on electronics recycling, increasing plastic bottle collection, and promoting greater beneficial use of landfill gas. DPPEA will further work to increase the reach of the Recycle Guys campaign, and develop a new promotion campaign designed to encourage a commitment to recycling by teen-agers and young adults. The trust fund will continue to support the effective Waste Reduction Partners program in western North Carolina, and help North Carolina participate in national coalitions seeking to promote product stewardship.
All questions regarding the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Trust Fund may be directed to Scott Mouw, Chief, Community and Business Assistance Section, Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance, at 919-715-6512.
24
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Attachment A: Trust Fund Revenue Sources
The North Carolina Solid Waste Trust Fund received 95 percent of its revenues in FY 03-04 from two sources: the statewide fees on the purchase of new tires and white goods (appliances). The trust fund only receives a small portion of the proceeds from these fees. The total distribution arrangement of each of these fees is described below:
Scrap Tire Tax - During this reporting period (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), a 2 percent fee was levied on the purchase of new tires in North Carolina. The tire tax allocation is as follows:

68 percent of revenues are distributed to the counties on a per capita basis to pay for the proper management of discarded tires.

27 percent of revenues are credited to the Scrap Tire Disposal Account (administered by the Solid Waste Section) for local government grants and nuisance tire site cleanup.

5 percent of revenues are credited to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund (administered by the Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance).
White Goods Tax - During this reporting period (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004); a $3 fee was levied on the purchase on all appliances. The white goods tax allocation is as follows:

72 percent of revenues are distributed to the counties on a per capita basis to pay for the proper management of discarded white goods.

20 percent of revenues are credited to the White Goods Management Account (administered by the Solid Waste Section) for grants to local governments for managing discarded white goods.

8 percent of revenues are credited to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund (administered by the Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance)
FUNDING PARTNERS FOR THE FY 03-04 RECYCLE GUYS CAMPAIGN
The Solid Waste Trust Fund received an additional approximate five percent of its revenues from partners and other funding sources supporting the Recycle Guys educational campaign, as detailed below.
Partner Name
Amount Given
Mecklenburg County
$5,000
Town of Cary
$5,000
City of Raleigh
$5,000
Wake County
$4,000
Davidson County
$2,500
City of Burlington
$2,500
Orange County
$1,000
New Hanover County
$995
NC Dept of Transportation
$10,000
UNC-Charlotte
$600
US EPA
$12,000
TOTAL
$48,595
25
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Attachment B: 2004 Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Projects
GRANTEE
AMOUNT
GRANT DESCRIPTION
Buncombe County
$20,000
Buncombe County will improve and expand its household hazardous waste program and construct a permanent electronics recycling facility at its landfill.
Chatham County
$5,000
Chatham County will work with the National Soft Drink Association to increase recycling in its public school system and purchase recycling containers to help that effort.
City of Charlotte
$23,500
The city of Charlotte will develop and implement its "Mark of Distinction" education and outreach program to increase recycling participation in minority neighborhoods.
City of Conover
$12,735
The city of Conover will purchase a mobile recycling trailer and modify an existing recycling truck.
City of Durham
$24,550
The city of Durham will purchase special event recycling bins and develop a Latino outreach program.
City of Greensboro
$12,960
The city of Greensboro, in conjunction with UNC-G, Guilford County, and the City of High Point, will hold a one day electronics collection event in the Spring of 2005.
City of Raleigh
$25,000
The city of Raleigh will adopt the National Soft Drink Association's radio and billboard recycling ads designed to increase public awareness and commitment to recycling.
Dixie Classic Fairgrounds
$20,000
Dixie Classic Fairgrounds will purchase a 4 wheel drive tractor with front end bucket to improve its composting operation.
Edgecombe County
$12,500
Edgecombe County will purchase containers and implement a mixed paper recycling program.
Franklin County
$16,000
Franklin County will expand its recycling program by including all county office buildings in its mixed paper collection project.
Gaston County
$18,000
Gaston County will create a billboard advertising campaign to raise residents' awareness about recycling facilities available in the county.
Greene County
$17,000
Greene County will purchase containers and conduct public outreach to increase the amount of recyclables received at its convenience centers.
Habitat For Humanity of Forsyth County
$15,000
Habitat for Humanity will purchase a forklift, used baler, and other materials to support a wood recycling program and to recycle waste generated in its operations.
Hyde County
$11,145
Hyde County will make improvements to its convenience sites and work to improve participation in curbside recycling.
Iredell County
$22,000
Iredell County will implement a school recycling program, work to increase participation in curbside recycling, and enhance the current aluminum recycling program.
Iredell County
$4,500
Iredell Countywill implement a backyard composting education and bin distribution program.
Jackson County
$25,000
Jackson County will add four containers at recycling centers to expand collection of recyclable paper.
Keep Wayne County Beautiful
$25,000
Keep Wayne County Beautiful will implement a paper recycling program in all 31 county schools.
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
$25,000
Land of Sky will help Buncombe County and City of Asheville Schools set up a school recycling program & conduct related outreach activities.
Lee County
$21,275
Lee County will implement a new educational program and expand some waste reduction activities to public buildings in the county.
26
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
GRANTEE AMOUNT GRANT DESCRIPTION
Madison County
$11,365
Madison County will add cardboard collection to its existing services and develop a public education program.
McDowell County
$3,600
McDowell County will conduct a Master Composter Course for the county's convenience center staff. The county will also sponsor an Earth Day celebration and compost bin giveaway.
Mecklenburg County
$25,000
Mecklenburg County will develop and distribute 50,000 Wipe Out Waste guides designed to increase public awareness of recycling opportunities.
Mecklenburg County
$15,000
Mecklenburg County will implement a television, radio, and news campaign to educate businesses about their commercial recycling ordinance and decrease the amount of paper going to the landfill.
New Hanover County
$25,000
New Hanover County will begin recycling construction and demolition waste at the county landfill, using the grant to purchase signage and a loader, and hire manual laborers to sort materials.
Orange County
$25,000
Orange County will purchase a crusher to reduce glass recycling costs.
Orange County
$10,000
Orange County will adopt the National Soft Drink Association's radio and billboard recycling ads.
Pasquotank County
$5,000
Pasquotank County will test asphalt paving made with recycled glass at a county collection site.
PCG SWM Commission
$24,520
The PCG Commission will implement a mobile home recycling program for the three county region.
Rutherford County
$4,900
Rutherford County will send recycling brochures to county households, erect bulletin boards, and publish a video to promote recycling.
Scotland County
$20,000
Scotland County will construct a permanent HHW facility and implement a paint, oil, battery and antifreeze collection program.
Town of Hope Mills
$4,140
The town of Hope Mills will purchase recycled content containers and benches labeled to educate the public about green purchasing.
Town of Kernersville
$3,780
The town of Kernersville will create a purchasing manual and conduct training for purchasers, businesses, and residents to improve the buy-recycled program.
Town of Kernersville
$23,107
The town of Kernersville will upgrade from recycling bins to carts, present a composting workshop, electronics recycling day event, develop a pallet exchange program and print a residential brochure in English & Spanish.
Town of Woodfin
$13,850
The town of Woodfin will establish a curbside recycling program.
Tyrrell County
$3,960
Tyrrell County will make general physical improvements on and increase education about the county's recycling program.
Wayne Opportunity Center
$25,000
Wayne Opportunities Center will support the county's new school recycling program and commercial recycling efforts with expanded processing capacity.
27
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Attachment C: 2004 Recycling Business Grant Projects
GRANTEE
AMOUNT
GRANT DESCRIPTION
CompuTel IG
$20,000
CompuTel will purchase a truck with a hydraulic tailgate to increase its coverage area and provide a more rapid response to its clients.
Confidential Shredding
$20,000
Confidential Shredding will purchase a mobile shredding truck and customer security containers to expand paper recycling collection and document destruction services by offering on-site paper shredding services to customers.
Curbside Management
$30,000
Curbside Management will purchase collection bins, refurbish a truck, and install a floor level sort line to implement a paper and cardboard recycling collection program for commercial customers.
ECVC
$17,500
ECVC will install and utilize a trommel screen with an outside drive to remove contaminants from mixed glass cullet.
Edwards Custom Sawmilling & Lumber
$7,500
Edwards will purchase a 4-sided planer and related equipment to process urban old growth timber into lumber to be used by cabinet shops, flooring manufacturers, and custom furniture manufacturers.
Elizabeth City Glass
$20,000
Elizabeth City Glass will purchase and install capital equipment to support a pre-cast cement production process that will use C&D pane glass, ceramics, and post-consumer container glass as feedstock aggregate for a variety of end-use products.
Ensley Corp.
$25,000
Ensley Corporation will construct a concrete storage pad and a ramp from the facility loading docks to the outside ground to enable expansion of HDPE plastic recycling.
Habitat ReUse Center- Wake County
$35,000
The Habitat Reuse Center will expand its deconstruction services and focus on commercial buildings. (NOTE: Habitat's Business Recycling grant is combined with a CWRAR grant)
Inter-Faith Food Shuttle
$25,000
Inter-Faith Food Shuttle will purchase a truck to expand its food collection services from Triangle area grocery stores.
Jackson Paper Manufacturing
$12,500
Jackson Paper will study paper-based poultry bedding vs. wood based litter to see the differences in modeled precipitation and associated nitrogen and phosphate leachate and run-off.
Kamlar Corp.
$25,000
Kamlar Corporation will purchase a front-end loader with solid tires and a clamshell-clamping bucket to expand wood waste recycling.
McGill Environmental Systems
$45,000
McGill will establish the company's third major composting facility in
N.C. in Pitt County (NOTE: This grant turned down when McGill's business development plans changed)
Oaks Unlimited
$30,000
Oaks Unlimited will install equipment to mill pallet deckboards into pre-finished flooring ready for installation. The finished product will be boxed and ready for distribution.
Orange Recycling Services
$35,000
ORS will install a semi-automated "mini MRF" to assist in sorting commingled containers, and separately commingled paper.
Paper Stock Dealers - Raleigh
$20,000
Paper Stock Dealers will purchase capital equipment to implement a corrugated cardboard and office paper recovery program for businesses and schools.
Preserve Business Systems
$20,000
PreServe will expand its post industrial recycled plastic grinding capacity by purchasing a large capacity and heavy duty grinder and supporting equipment.
Reily Recovery Services, Inc.
$25,000
Reily Recovery Services will purchase a flatbed truck with hydraulic boom and forklift attachment; and acquire and distribute 100 specially designed collection boxes for recycled vinyl siding.
28
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
GRANTEE AMOUNT GRANT DESCRIPTION
Scotland Neck Heart Pine
$20,000
Scotland Neck Heart Pine will purchase and install an in-line gang ripsaw for re-dimensioning sawn planks recovered from old buildings.
Shimar Recycling
$20,000
Shimar will install a horizontal baler to assist in their ability to process a greater amount of material more economically and efficiently.
Synergy Recycling
$20,000
Synergy will purchase a 26" box truck with lift-gate to assist in the "milk run" collection of electronics from customers around the state.
Union Gypsum
$45,000
Union Gypsum will add a new building and equipment to process gypsum drywall, poultry litter, and sawdust.
Weyerhaeuser
$35,000
Weyerhaeuser will install equipment to expand processing capacity for commercial office paper and cardboard. (NOTE: Grant turned down when Weyerhaeuser implemented alternative paper recovery plans).
29
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 4
STATE AGENCY WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS
State law and executive order directs state agencies to use products containing recycled materials. Executive Order 156 was signed in 1999 in support of N.C. Project Green, the state environmental sustainability initiative, and was an updating and strengthening of the original initiative of Executive Order 8, signed in 1993.2 Purchasing recycled and other environmentally preferable products improves recycling markets, helps reduce environmental impacts from waste, and saves energy and natural resources. Many state agencies and local school districts help achieve these goals through thoughtful purchasing decisions and the use of recycled content products.
North Carolina state government has continued to make progress toward environmental sustainability by offering recycled and environmentally preferable products at affordable prices on state contract. Currently, over 20 categories are on term contract that offer products with recycled content materials, and several more products available offer some sort of environmentally preferable attribute, including recycled content packaging or energy efficiency. State agencies, and others who can buy from state term contract such as local governments, have a wide degree of choice in the purchase of high quality, cost-effective recycled products on term contract. The list of products is available at: www.doa.state.nc.us/PandC/recycled.htm
This chapter summarizes the efforts of state agencies to purchase recycled products. It fulfills the reporting mandate of N.C. General Statute 143-58.2(f) for fiscal year 2004. It compiles purchasing reports required from 26 state government department and offices, 16 constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina, 57 community colleges, and 96 local public school administrative units. In FY 03-04, reports were received from 88 percent of agencies (195 out of 221), 2 percent more than the previous fiscal year. Most of the agencies that did not report have not complied with reporting requirements for at least the past four years. This data fluctuates somewhat each year. For example, twelve agencies that did not report last year reported this year and eight agencies that usually report did not report this year. All reporting was conducted online, saving paper and postage.
The N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) is the agency charged with compiling data from agency reports and publishing this summary. Copies of this and past reports are available on-line at www.p2pays.org/epp or by calling (919) 715-6505 or (800) 763-0136.
Purchases of Recycled Products
Paper and Paper Products. Reported agency purchases of all office paper and paper products (recycled and non-recycled) in FY 03-04 totaled $43,733,680. Last year’s paper purchases were reported at $41,284,807, which reflects a six percent increase in overall paper purchases from the previous year. Over the last five years, state paper consumption has maintained a steady rate, as electronic communication has grown and spending constraints have leveled off.
Recycled paper purchases were up 3.5 percent from the previous fiscal year and totaled $33,555,918. Recycled paper constituted 77 percent of total paper purchases reported, a two percent decrease from last year. True purchases of recycled content paper and paper products probably are not apparent because some purchasers were not aware that it was the only paper on state term contract. This year the decrease reflects the virgin paper that is now back on state term contract and available at a lower price. The recycled content paper is a little over a dollar more than virgin paper, but the current contract also includes a higher delivery charge for recycled content paper. Although waste reduction techniques, such as double-sided printing and using one-sided pages for fax machines could easily neutralize the difference, this setback could prove to be significant in reaching goals set by executive order.
2 Full text of No. 156 is available online at www.p2pays.org/epp/reports.asp.
30
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
This is the third year in which agencies failed to meet the goal set forth by Executive Order 156 3 “State agencies shall attempt to meet the goal that, as of FY 00-01, 100 percent of the total dollar value of expenditures for paper and paper products be toward purchases of paper and paper products with recycled content.” Unfortunately, due to some of the issues discussed, recycled content office paper only represented 79 percent of the total office paper purchases, which is a 5 percent decrease from last year.
More than half of the miscellaneous paper purchased, including items such as legal pads, file folders, labels, and continuous feed forms contain recycled content materials. This is a category that has remained consistent for the last seven years. Education could easily improve the numbers, especially considering many of these products are available on term contracts with recycled content. More positively, towel/tissue paper achieved an exceptionally high percentage of 91 percent containing recycled content, which is a 3 percent increase from last year.
Twenty-seven agencies succeeded in reaching the 100 percent goal this fiscal year for all paper purchases, four more than last year. This is a slowly climbing number that hopefully represents an overall effort to reach compliance under the executive order. Another 33 agencies achieved a recycled content paper purchasing rate of 95 percent or higher, and 45 percent of all agencies reporting bought recycled paper for 90 percent of their paper usage needs. About a quarter of reporting agencies purchased all their office paper with recycled content, and over a third bought all recycled content towel/tissue products.
As another element of recycled paper usage, agencies also report on their specification of recycled content products in contracted work. Approximately 56 percent of agencies consistently specified recycled content in contracted services last fiscal year. Reported spending on outside print orders was $15,161,323, a two percent increase from the previous year. Of the reported total, 51 percent was on recycled paper, down from 65 percent last year. This decrease in recycled content paper used on print jobs could reflect the cost differential from recycled content to virgin paper. Figure 1. State Agency Total Purchases of Recycled Paper and Paper ProductsFiscal Years 1994-2004$-$10,000,000$20,000,000$30,000,000$40,000,000$50,000,00019941995199619971998199920002001200220032004Total Recycled Paper Purchases0%20%40%60%80%100%Percent of Total PurchasesAnnual Purchases of Recycled PaperPercent of Total Paper Purchases
Figure 1 illustrates the trend in overall dollar amounts and percentages of recycled paper purchases over the past eleven fiscal years, including this year’s increase in overall recycled content paper purchases. The data indicates a need to enhance efforts to achieve the 100 percent goal across all agencies. A renewed emphasis and commitment from top management in directing agencies to meet the statutory and executive goals would help the accomplishment of the goal. There is an obvious need for a targeted campaign of outreach to agencies with a high level of virgin paper purchasing.
Policy and Administrative Support This year, agencies were again asked to report if they had buy-recycled policies or goals in place. A mere 38 percent of the reporting agencies responded positively to
3 G.S. 143-58.3 established a goal that at least 50 percent of all agency expenditures for paper and paper products are comprised of recycled product purchases. Executive Order No. 8 set a goal for agency expenditures of recycled paper and paper products of 65 percent in Fiscal Year 1998. Executive Order No. 156 reestablished the goal at 100 percent by the Year 2001.
31
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
this question, which reflects a slight increase from last year, perhaps from the new agencies that reported. Agencies are also reporting that fewer administrators are communicating the importance of purchasing recycled content products. Consistent with past year’s data, only slightly more than half of the agencies report receiving this message, and this percentage is on a continual decrease since 1997. Lead coordinators for buy-recycled efforts hold steady at less than half of the reporting agencies having this kind of administrative support. The general statutes or executive order does not require agencies to develop a policy, but it could be the first step to improving our State’s efficiency in recycled content product purchases. Agencies are responsible for purchasing recycled content products, as well as designating a lead coordinator. Executive Order 156 requires administrator encouragement, which is a key component to a successful recycled content procurement program. Examining these factors could be a way to increase participation significantly.
Non-Paper Products Agencies reported spending $14,593,230 on non-paper recycled products in FY 03-04, up 27 percent from the previous year’s expenditures. This number continues to increase as purchasers become more educated about the products they buy, and as the array of recycled products increase and become more available on term contracts and through vendors. Examples include remanufactured laser toner cartridges, plastic can liners, recapped tires, plastic lumber, compost and mulch, re-refined motor oil, carpet and uniforms.
Total expenditures of the recycled non-paper products reflect numbers similar to last year. They are illustrated below in Figure 2. The size of the colored categories represents the total dollars of purchases in that category and the height in that fiscal year represents total purchases of non-paper recycled products. Reports revealed minor fluctuations in most categories with the exception of building materials, which decreased from $150,296 last year to $32,414 this year. There is nearly a 60 percent increase in the “other” category though, which may reflect some of these expenditures. Re-refined motor oil purchases were also down by 34 percent, which could be a result of some changes over the past fiscal year in the contract. This contract is going out for bid again in FY 04-05 and will hopefully yield a stable, cost efficient, reliable vendor that can maintain the contract for a more significant time. Figure 2. Agency Purchases of NonPaperRecycled Content Products Fiscal Years 2000-2004$0$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000$10,000,000$12,000,000$14,000,000$16,000,00020002001200220032004Fiscal YearValueOtherBuilding MaterialsCompost/MulchRecapped TiresPlastic LumberCan LinersOffice SuppliesRe-refined Motor OilUniformsCarpetContainersToner Cartridges
Other Environmental Purchasing Efforts. Some state agencies excelled beyond buying recycled, and now tackle more sustainable issues like environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP). EPP, or gpurchasing, includes a host of attributes considered to decrease the impact of purchases on the environment. For example, many agencies, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel HilNorth Carolina State University, Fayetteville Technical Community College, and the Department of Transportation, started green building initiatives for new facilities or added greening energy and water elements in older buildings. Green buildings require architects and contractors to consider many things
from building placement, water and energy use, and more environmentally friendly products. 32
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Other initiatives in state government include the vast efforts of Motor Fleet Management to increase environmental initiatives. Of Motor Fleet’s nearly 8,000 vehicles, over 3,300 vehicles are alternative fuecars and 46 are hybri
c
fleet vehicles.
Conclusion The purchase of recycled content products is a well-established practice in state government, supported by statutory and executive order requirements, as well as state term contracts that offer high qualityaffordable recycled content choices for state purchasers. Still, progress must be made to bring agencies to full compliance with the 100 percent recycled content paper goal. The accomplishmen
a
management support and increased overall awareness of requirements and products. With a few significant purchasing decisions, several key agencies could substantially increase the performance of state government in recycled paper purchasing. Converting the current $10.2 millvirgin paper purchases to recycled paper will allow North Carolina state government to contribute substantially to the strength of recycling markets. As a major player in the collection of paper for recycling, state government stands to benefit directly from improved markets. The use of recycled products will also help North Carolina achieve its environmental goals by reducing natural resource, energy and water usage, and preventing air and water pollution. For example, re-refin
th
comparable cost to vi
Recommendations
T
state government meet goals set forth in both Executive Order 156 and general statutes. I. Reinvigorate Executive Order 156. While Executive Order 156 continues to carry weight with mostate agencies, a reissuance will provide a new focus and create additional support for recycled copurchasing. It will also strengthen the ability
agency purchases. Strong and active gubernatorial support can help the state successfully meet executive and legislatively mandated goals. II. Increase administrative support and educational programs. Disparity among agencies in tdegree of support and routine communication received from top management may be the most signifibarrier to increased agency participation in recycling and recycled content product procurement. Administrative support is also crucial to the successful implementation of agency sustainability plans under N.C. Project Green
p
rocurement. For those agencies that have not yet prioritized waste reduction and buying recycled, it is recommended that they:

Implement and adhere to the goals of Executive Order 156, which states that all paper purchased have a minimum of 30 percent post-consumer content (by FY 00-01).

Issue and enforce internal policies, official memoranda, and formal declarations that demonstrate administrative leadership and support for buying recy

Develop and implement ongoing outreach and education programs for employees and visitors and take advantage of the assistance DPPEA can offer.
 Commit to N.C. Project Green by participating in their monthly meetings and pledging to achieve its goals as part of their overall commitment to environmental sustainability. III. Increase Procurement of Non-Paper Recycled Content Products. Outright expenditures for nonpaper recycled products continue to lag behind those of paper purchases. A vast variety of products is available with recycled content materials, which is apparent from the federal government’s purchasinregulations under Executive Order 13101. Their Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines feature over fifty items in eight categories, including paper, non-paper office, construction, landscaping, park and
33
N.C. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
34
recycling and
cled products purchased through agency
egations.
aterials and supplies by contracted services, especially in
agencies can begin to make purchasing decisions that will be of
ion of
s, nonprofit
information). Purchasing a diverse array of recycled content products not only strengthens job markets in North Carolina, it also helps agencies fulfill their obligation to become more
e
nvironmentally sustainable. To improve overall buy recycled efforts, state agencies should:  Expand the quantity and variety of non-paper recy
c
onvenience contracts and state term contracts.

Enforce purchasing rules that mandate buying from state term contract above in-house del

Establish or upgrade electronic tracking systems for all recycled product purchases.  Specify or encourage the use of recycled m
construction, housekeeping, and printing. IV. Make Purchasing Decisions Based On Full Environmental Impact Versus One-Time Cost. To determine the full environmental impact of a product or service, it is important to look at the full life cycle analysis of a product. By doing so, state
b
enefit in both the short and long term.  Begin looking at products in terms of broad environmental impacts including: durability, energy efficiency, performance, recycled content and recyclability, toxicity, biodegradability, locatmanufacturer (local availability), and packaging. Utilize government programorganizations, and third party certifiers for assistance, including US EPA (www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp/index.htm), Green Seal (www.greenseal.org), Energy Star
(
www.energystar.gov), and American Forest and Paper Associations (www.afandpa.org).  Develop guidelines and
e
nvironmental impact.

ting procedures so that agencies can receive credit for environmental pu
Alamance Community Colle
Alexander County Schools
Appalachian State University
Ashe County Board of E
Asheboro City Schools
Carteret County Schools
Central Piedmont Commun
Edenton-Chowan Schools
Fayetteville Technical Com
Franklin County Schools
Guilford County Schools
Johnston County Schools
Mitchell County Schools
N
Pamlico Community Colle
Pamlico County Schools
Pembroke State Universi
Pender County Schools
Piedmont Community College
Roanoke Rapids City Scho
Sampson Count
UNC Charlotte
UNC Greensboro
Wake Technical Commu
Wilkes County Schools
Wilson Technical Community Col
Administrative Office of the Courts
Alleghany County Board
Avery County Schools
Bertie County Schools
Catawba County Schools
Cherokee County Schools
Clay County Board of
Clinton City Schools
Columbus County Scho
Dare County Schools
Edgecombe Community College
Elizabeth City State Unive
Hoke County Board of Ed
Kannapolis City Schools
Kings Mountain District Schools
Lenoir County Public Scho
Madison County Schools
Orange County Schools
Pasquotank County S
Pitt County Schools
Robeson County Public Sch
Thomasville City
UNC Hospitals
WNC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 5
WHITE GOODS MANAGEMENT
"White goods" are defined in G.S. 130A-290 (a)(44) as, "refrigerators, ranges, water heaters, freezers, unit air conditioners, washing machines, dishwashers, and clothes dryers and other similar domestic and commercial large appliances."
Key Findings

County governments are managing increasing numbers of white goods. County white goods programs continue to prevent the wide-scale illegal dumping of white goods by offering disposal, at no cost, to the citizen.

A number of counties will continue to be dependent on cost over-run grants for the near future, in order to finance their operating costs. Several counties with high operating expenses should reevaluate their program.

The number of counties requesting cost over-run grants stayed roughly the same while the amounts requested fell.

Total money requested by counties for cost over-run grants decreased approximately 20 percent and probably is due to an increase in the value of scrap metal in overseas markets.

Some counties appear to be slow in exploiting the rising value of their scrap metals. Counties with existing contracts and arrangements with haulers and recyclers are unable or unwilling to re-negotiate more profitable conditions.

The revenues of the White Goods Grants Program continue to fall due to the decreasing numbers of ineligible counties.

Cost over-run grant amounts requested are expected to swell when the present sharp increase in the value of scrap metal subsides, leading to greater financial strain on the program.

Greater accountability by counties can ensure that white goods revenues fund white goods expenses.
This interim report is based on information supplied by counties' Annual Financial Information Reports, submitted to the Office of State Treasurer. AFIRs are due by Dec. 1.. Fifty-four counties had submitted by Dec. 23, 2004. A final report will be available on the Solid Waste Section Web site, http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/, when the remaining counties submit their AFIRs. Aside from many AFIRs being late, many have blank or erroneous entries.
Counties that did not report as of December 23, 2004
Beaufort
Bertie
Buncombe
Burke
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Cherokee
Chowan
Clay
Columbus
Davidson
Davie
Franklin
Gates
Graham
Halifax
Henderson
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Jackson
Lincoln
Mitchell
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
Northampton
Pamlico
Perquimans
Pender
Pitt
Richmond
Robeson
Rowan
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Watauga
Wayne
Yancey
Financial Update

The white goods management account no longer runs a large surplus. The number of counties that forfeit their tax proceeds declined significantly while grant requests declined only slightly. In FY 98-99, 42 counties forfeited tax proceeds. However, by the fourth quarter of FY 03-04, only eight counties had forfeited their proceeds.
35
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04

The amount of forfeited funds available for redistribution dropped 75 percent in recent grant periods, at the same time that county requests for cost overrun grants have recently decreased approximately 20 percent.

Many counties that allowed reserve funds to accrue in the past are now depleting those funds to pay for daily operations and program infrastructure.
Advance Disposal Fee
Net white goods ADF collections in FY 03-04 totaled $4,512,673.73 and dispersed as follows:
$ 3,093,284.73 Allocated for direct distribution to counties
$ 859,245.76 Allocated for white goods management account
$ 343,698.30 Solid Waste Management trust fund
$ 216,445.94 N.C. Revenue Department cost of collections
$ 2,553,991.73 Actual amount distributed directly to counties
$ 539,293.00 Forfeited by ineligible counties
Although $ 3,093,284.73 (72 percent of the net disposal fee collections) is for distribution, ineligible counties forfeited $539,293. The forfeited funds went to the white goods management account, which receives 20 percent of net collections.
White Goods Management Account
The impetus of the White Goods Management Account is to help counties whose costs exceed their share of ADF revenue. The account receives twenty percent of white goods ADF revenues. It also receives funds forfeited by counties whose surplus exceeds the threshold amount. By the end of FY 03-04, the White Goods Management Account had $1,030,414 in projected commitments and a balance of $898,588.75, which was slightly lower than the starting balance of $979,084.93. These commitments include $500,000 for grant request for the first half of the next fiscal year and $530,414 for capital improvement grant obligations. This account is used to fund counties that incur deficits in their white goods accounts and provide capital improvement funds to counties to upgrade program infrastructure. Counties received $200,119.45 in excess of the proceeds received for distribution in FY 03-04.
WHITE GOODS DISPOSAL ACCOUNT BALANCE FY 03-04
Beginning Balance (July 1, 2003)
$ 979,084.93
Funds Received during FY 03-04
$ 1,398,538.76
Cost Overrun Grants Disbursed in FY 03-04
$ 987,933.30
Capital Improvement Grants Paid in FY 03-04
$ 610,724.91
Monies Needed for Future Grant Awards*
$ 1,030,414.00
Ending Balance (June 30, 2004)
$ 898,588.75
*Includes $530,414 reserved for capitol improvement grants and $500,000 reserved for next
round of overrun grants. Increase in Total Requests for White Goods Grants$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000$1,000,0001998Jan-98Jun1998Jul-98Dec1999Jan-99Jun1999Jul-99Dec2000Jan-00Jun2000Jul-00Dec2001Jan-01Jun2001Jul-01Dec2002Jan-02Jun2002Jul-02Dec2003Jan-03Jun2003Jul-03Dec2004Jan-04Jun
White Goods Management Account Grants
This graph shows total amounts of money requested by counties for cost over-run grants in recent grant periods decreased. This probably is due to the increasing value of scrap metal. Over $385,450 in grants went to 30 counties for losses incurred January-June 2004; $463,885.06 was
36
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
distributed to 34 counties for losses incurred July-December 2003.
Sixteen counties received capital improvement grants totaling $610,724.91. In FY 03-04, counties requested $1,460,060.09 in cost overrun and capitol improvement grants, but the fee produced only $1,398,538.76 in revenues.
As the graph shows, the total of the amounts requested have decreased gradually but slightly in recent grant periods. As the following graph depicts, the amount of available funds dropped significantly at the same time grant requests declined only slightly.
White Goods Revenues Received Since the Year 2000 $0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000Feb-00May-00Aug-00Nov-00Feb-01May-01Aug-01Nov-01Feb-02May-02Aug-02Nov-02Feb-03May-03Aug-03Nov-03Feb-04May-04Aug-04Fiscal Quarter ForfeitedRegular
Note: Blank areas indicate no revenue received
Program Results
Grant and ADF funding made it possible to clean up illegal dumpsites. Previously, many counties gave white goods a low priority and under-funded their management. The white goods account makes it possible for counties to obtain the specialized equipment or collection/loading areas needed to improve white goods management.
In FY 03-04, 54 county collection sites took in 44,715 tons, or an estimated 1,117,875 appliances. This compares to the 25,749 tons, or 644,000 appliances, collected in FY 91-92 by all counties. Without the program, dumping or stockpiling large numbers of appliances could occur.
White Goods Management by County Governments
In 1989, legislation banned white goods from landfills to encourage recycling and better management. Comprehensive white goods management laws enacted in 1993 included an ADF. In 1998, Senate Bill 124 extended the fee for 3 years but reduced it from $10 to $3. Removal of the sunset occurred in 2000.
The major accomplishment of the program is a drastic reduction in illegal dumping of white goods. The critical factor was requiring local governments to provide collection sites at no cost to citizens. Counties can use ADF proceeds to clean sites dependent on the percentage of white goods at the site.
Another accomplishment came when counties implemented proper management practices to capture and recycle carbon fluorocarbons. The practice avoids illegal venting into the atmosphere and creates a potential profit center.
37
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Though the white goods program has had many accomplishments, some problems remain. These include the limited accountability by counties to assure the exclusive use of tax disbursements and grants solely for the management of white goods.
Many local governments are privatizing their white goods management. Overall, privatization does not necessarily mean that programs are more efficient. In many instances privatized white goods management incorporated into a more comprehensive solid waste contract between a local government and a private firm, makes it difficult to measure program efficiency.
Counties That Forfeited Funds
Counties That Became Ineligible for Advance Disposal Fees In March 2004
(Based on FY 02-03 AFIR Reports)
Beaufort
Bertie
Caswell
Chowan
Columbus
Currituck
Dare
Durham
Forsyth
Franklin
Gates
Haywood
Hertford
Hoke
Jones
Macon
Montgomery
Pamlico
Pender
Polk
Richmond
Robeson
Sampson
Tyrrell
Wake
Wilkes
Yadkin
Counties That Will Become Ineligible for Advance Disposal Fees In March 2005
(Based on FY 03-04 AFIR Reports)
Counties that will not receive ADF distributions because undesignated balances exceed their threshold.
Anson
Jones
Catawba
Polk
Forsyth
Sampson
Granville
Surry
Counties that do not submit their AFIR by March 1, 2005 will be ineligible to receive tax proceeds.
White Goods Management Costs
Counties can use the white goods ADF proceeds disbursed quarterly by the Department of Revenue for daily expenses incurred to recycle white goods. Funds for one-time expenses, such as purchasing specialized equipment and making site improvements for better management, is also an option for local governments. Many county programs are not self-sustaining and require subsidies. Expenses for these programs include fuel, labor and the cost of associated items. Poor planning design is a major factor in counties with low and high program costs. This means that counties with minimal costs are not necessarily more efficient than counties with high costs. Some counties with low program costs are marginally in compliance with the law’s intent.
The 54 reporting counties spent $3,663,561.00 in FY 03-04. Of this total, $3,004,803 was for daily operations, $419,751 for capital improvements, and $143,883 to clean up illegal disposal sites.
Counties with high per unit costs usually have extensive programs, a cost allocation plan, lack a local market, or have a combination of these factors. Counties with little or no disposal costs tend to have minimal programs, poor record keeping, access to a local market or a combination of these factors. Only a few counties have metals recyclers willing to provide free pickup from county collection sites and/or provide CFC recovery in exchange for access to the scrap metal.
38
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
39
Highest Operating Costs Reported
County
Cost per ton
Cost per appliance*
Washington
$343.77
$13.75
Alexander
$328.43
$13.14
Gaston
$319.21
$12.77
Cumberland
$211.30
$ 8.45
Durham
$161.17
$ 6.45
Orange
$151.09
$ 6.04
Harnett
$131.61
$ 5.26
Mecklenburg
$122.71
$ 4.91
Ashe
$122.07
$ 4.88
Cleveland
$109.85
$ 4.39
Lowest Operating Costs Reported
County
Cost per ton
Cost per appliance*
Anson
$ 0.56
$0.02
Iredell
$ 1.86
$0.07
Cabarrus
$ 5.56
$0.22
Wilson
$ 6.70
$0.27
Guilford
$10.97
$0.44
Caldwell
$18.89
$0.76
Granville
$20.89
$0.84
Greene
$25.40
$1.02
Catawba
$25.97
$1.04
Forsyth
$27.47
$1.10
*Estimate assumes an average appliance weight of 80 pounds.
Outsourcing loading and transport to the recycler can reduce some costs. Other counties use in-house labor to sort and segregate metals, recover CFCs or extract motors or oil. Overall, operating costs by counties do not seem restricted by geography. Instead, analysis suggests that a correlation to distance to markets, extent of programs, extent of record keeping, and cost allocation plans among counties have a greater effect on county costs.
Tonnage Collected by Counties
In FY 03-04, 54 counties reported processing 44,715 tons of white goods. This translates into 1,117,875 individual appliances (assuming 25 appliances per ton), or about .14 appliances per person in North Carolina.
For information on a specific county program, please see the Data, Statistics, Reports and Planning page on the Solid Waste Section Web site (http://wastenotnc.org). NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
CHAPTER 6
SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT
Scrap Tire Disposal Account
The 1993 General Assembly created the Scrap Tire Disposal Account (STDA). The account receives 27 percent of its revenues from the Scrap Tire Disposal Tax initiated Oct. 1, 1993. The 2002 General Assembly removed of the sunset on the Scrap Tire Disposal Tax.
Beginning in October 1992, 25 percent of the STDA fund was allocated for cost overrun grants to counties and 75 percent was allocated for clean up of nuisance tire sites. Starting with the Aug. 12, 1997 distribution, the fund allocates 50 percent for cost overrun grants, 10 percent for clean up of nuisance tire sites and 40 percent for processed tire material market development grants.
Balance of Funds as of July 1, 2003
$3,544,238.55
Deposits Received FY 2003-2004
$3.097,427.30
Total Funds in Account
$6,641,665.85
Grants to County Scrap Tire Programs
$1,649,566.67
Nuisance Tire Site Cleanup Program
$176,230.87
Processed Tire Material Grants
$514,196.90
Balance of Funds as of June 30, 2004
$4,301,671.41
Obligated funds as of June 30, 2004*
$3,116,399.45
Net Balance of Funds as of June 30, 2004*
$1,185,271.96
* $3,116,399.45 obligated: $757,101.95 for tire cleanup, $2,359,297.50 for tire recycling grants under contract and under negotiation
Tire Tax Distribution
Per capita distribution to counties from the state's tire disposal tax revenue, initiated October 1993, amounts to 68 percent. In the past year, the total amount distributed was $7,749,883.99. This subsidized tire disposal costs for the counties, but did not cover many counties' total expenses. The total distributed to the counties represented 75 percent of the total reported disposal costs of $10,379,216.51. This provided an average of 74 cents for each of the 10.5 million scrap tires handled by the counties.
On Jan.1, 1994, counties stopped charging fees to dispose of tires that were certified as generated in North Carolina (per G.S. 130A-309.58). Counties may charge a fee for tires presented for disposal that do not present a scrap tire certification form verifying the tires were generated in North Carolina.
Counties whose scrap tire costs exceed the amount they receive in their allocation of the tire tax, can apply for a grant to cover the deficit. For the first grant cycle of FY 03-04, 61 counties requested $1,011,560 and were awarded $821,583. In the second grant cycle, 61 counties requested $1,107,106 and received $816,985.
Funds are available to help counties whose costs exceed their allocation. Historically, the amount of grant funds requested by counties has surpassed availability. Scrap tire legislation requires the waste management division to consider county efforts to avoid free, out-of-state tire disposal and county program efficiency when making decisions about grant awards.
Grant Period
10/97 – 3/98
4/98 – 9/98
10/98 – 3/99
4/99 - 9/99
10/99 - 3/00
4/00 – 9/00
Funds Available
$976,245.51
$687,847.37
$633,761.66
$699,950.87
$663,467.43
$751,295.88
Funds Awarded
$602,778.28
$644,334.67
$583,093.00
$666,042.36
$786,511.24
$799,500.85
Grant Requests
41
45
46
56
53
53
Funds Requested
$677,682.00
$761,308.00
$781,603.00
$816,004.63
$842,931.37
$898,907.67
Grant Period
10/00 – 3/01
4/01 – 9/01
10/01 – 3/02
4/02 - 9/02
10/02 - 3/03
4/03 - 9/03
Funds Available
$700,221.11
$ 0*
$ 0*
$ 792,399.37
$ 694,963.10
$ 788,202.47
Funds Awarded
$709,226.95
$804,004.00
$ 811,050.00
$ 820,685.00
$ 821,583.00
$ 816,985.00
Grant Requests
51
56
53
57
60
61
Funds Requested
$730,709.37
$992,564.00
$1,024,935.00
$1,052,145.00
$1,011,560.00
$1,107,106.00
*Used balance in other STDA fund.
40
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Grants Awarded
The goal of the division’s grant program is to make scrap tire recycling sustainable in North Carolina. This goal can be met. We anticipate awarding grants for manufacturing rubber products such as mats, auto parts, gaskets, flooring material, tire derived fuel, new tire manufacturing and other applications.
The Processed Scrap Tire Material Market Development Grants program received its first allocation of funding in August 1997. Grants awarded to date are:

Roll-Tech, Inc., Hickory, N.C. $212,420
Construct additional molds to increase hard rubber tire manufacture
COMPLETED

Continental Tire, Inc., Charlotte, N.C. $1,520,000
Develop “tire to tire” technology with 25 percent recycled content goal
COMPLETED

Jackson Paper, Inc., Sylva, N.C. $377,000
Boiler modifications for tire derived fuel
COMPLETED

N.C. State University, Raleigh, N.C. $38,291
Tooling development for scrap tire recycling
COMPLETED

TIRES, Inc., Winston-Salem, N.C. $320,000
Produce playground/industrial mats
COMPLETED

Texas Encore Materials, Inc. (Carolina Materials LLC), Belmont, N.C. $983,360
Manufacture extruded sheets from processed tire material

Roll-Tech LLC, Hickory, N.C. $855,937
Equipment acquisition for manufacturing solid rubber wheels
Tire Cleanup Program
Of the 358 identified nuisance tire sites in North Carolina, 335 are now clean and 20 sites have cleanups underway. The remaining three sites are either under investigation or enforcement action. Counties are encouraged to locate and clean all small tire sites through countywide cleanup activities.
Status
Number of Sites
Total Known Tires
Total Tires
Cleared Tires
Cleaned Up
335
7,484,566
93%
7,484,566
Under Clean Up
20
493,845
6%
123,530
Remaining Sites
3
17,708
1%
0
TOTAL
358
7,996,119
100%
7,608,096
The law requires the division to first address nuisance tire sites that pose the greatest threat to public health and the environment. At the start of the program, efforts and actions to clean top priority sites were developed and initiated, as funds were available. As cleanup funds were received through quarterly distributions, additional priority sites were cleaned.
The division has established and implemented a specific cleanup plan for each known nuisance tire site. With discovery of new sites, prompt investigation leads to a cleanup plan for each site within 30 days. Implementing the plan as soon as possible minimizes potential threats to human health and the environment. The section is committed to the North Carolina Big Sweep program, with reimbursements going to counties that request funds to dispose of scrap tires collected by the statewide event.
To date, STDA funds cleaned 188 nuisance tire sites. Cost recovery efforts collected $366,366.16 from responsible parties for nine of these sites. Two sites are under cost recovery action.
As a cost saving measure, minimum-security inmates have removed over 600,000 tires from nuisance sites. Counties utilizing inmate labor in nuisance tire cleanups are: Anson, Bladen, Buncombe, Burke,
41
NC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
FY 03-04
Camden, Chatham, Chowan, Cleveland, Columbus, Craven, Davidson, Halifax, Harnett, Iredell, Lee, Moore, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Perquimans, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Washington and Yadkin.
Scrap Tire Generation
The U.S. EPA standard to estimate scrap tire generation is one tire per person, per year.4 Based upon the 2003 North Carolina population of approximately 8.4 million residents, tire generation is estimated as equal. This includes passenger, truck, and tires for special uses, such as off-road equipment and tractors. Counties report tires received in either tons or the number of tires. A ton of tires consists of 100 passenger tires, 20 truck tires, or four off-road tires (tractors and other large off-road equipment).
In FY 03-04, counties reported receiving tires in three size categories: 81 percent passenger car tires, 15 percent heavy truck tires and 4 percent of